Is John 3:5 about Baptism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Is Baptism necessary for salvation? Jesus' words in John 3:5 certainly suggest that it is, but many Christians believe this verse is not about Baptism at all. In this video, I explain why John 3:5 is about Baptism, providing five different arguments.
Some opinions expressed in this video I have changed my mind on, you can see my new views here:
• I've Changed My Mind o...
and more thoroughly, here:
newkingdom.hom...
Please subscribe to this channel!
For more content visit my blog:
newkingdom.hom...
Please like and share our page on Facebook:
/ newkingdomblog
The text:
www.biblegatew...
thats not just a anglican thing. lutherans agree
When asked "if I'm born again", I always reply "yes, through baptism, the way the Bible tells us!". Love all your examples and with Ezekiel's prophecy (Ezekiel 36:25-27), I emphasise that this was why Jesus rebuked Nicodemus in John 3:10 when he said "you are Israel's teacher...and you do not understand these things?". Jesus expected Nicodemus, as a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, to be familiar with Ezekiel's prophecy about baptism.
There are more scriptures than John 3,5 that say that baptism is necessary for salvation. Mark 16,16 and 1. Peter 3,21.
also are there many more typological examples in the OT like the flood, Moses on the Nile, crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan river, Elijah and Elisha, Jonah, Naeman, and more. Baptism into Jesus Christ saves.
Must be accompanied with repentance and faith, but yes, absolutely. Gives us a clean conscience toward God.
@@ryandawson2877 exactly
Yes your right !!!! YOU MUST BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED , Many people will miss the rapture because they rejected the truth and refused to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and savor . God Bless you for telling the truth ...
I am coming to this video as a Baptist who is trying to understand the theology behind those churches that believe in a type of Baptismal Regeneration. (i.e. Lutheran, Anglican) I have found this video quite compelling. I have also heard some Lutheran arguments that are likewise compelling on this issue. One thing that I think I have come to understand is how Sola Fide and BR can work together cohesively, from a Lutheran and Anglican perspective.
However, this video has brought a couple of different questions to mind. If I understand the beliefs of the presenter, and Anglicanism at large,
it would be said that baptism is "generally" necessary for salvation? Meaning that it is ordinarily the case that one must be baptized in order to be saved, however there might be some outliers (possibly thief on the cross) because God is free to save and act beyond these means. If that is the case though, and someone were to be saved while not having been baptized, would that not make Jesus a liar when he says "... Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?" Perhaps a better understanding of the Greek would resolve this. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what Christ is saying when he says "kingdom of God." In this passage.
The other thoughts I have revolve around the mentioned quote from Peter in 1 Peter 3:21. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." The way I have understood this verse and would explain it (Baptist bias recognized) is that Peter is saying that Baptism saves as it is a profession to God, and the public, of belief and repentance towards salvation. And that is why Peter says it is not the "putting away the filth of the flesh" (the literal washing of water), but rather the "answer of a good conscience towards God" (what the act asks for and professes) that saves. I would link it to Romans 10:10 when Paul says "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Why is that incorrect? Or why is it better that it be taken to mean the literal "water baptism" is that which saves?
One of the better reasonings in favor of the regenerative position I have heard is the idea that when Paul (or Peter) are writing to the churches and mention "Baptism" it is unlikely that the churches themselves would have thought of something other than the physical water baptism. That seems like it very well may be! But we don't know all of the things the disciples discussed with the churches in person. They may have more likely thought of the "spiritual baptism" for all we know, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..."
If anyone would like to take the time to address these inquiries it would be greatly appreciated! This is certainly not a "simple" issue. Instead, I'd you have some good resources to point me to that address this I would be more than happy to read them!
P.S. NKM, I love your online ministry and it has been a blessing to my life. Before joining a Baptist congregation I had spent much of my adult life as a member of an Episcopal congregation. I am so thankful to see Anglicans like yourself returning to their confessional and reformational roots. Keep up the great work, and I will be praying for your ministry, both online and in your congregation.
You are correct about Jn. 3:6 and I would like to offer further evidence of affirmation for consideration. Grammatically the Greek for water (EX HODATOS)given here is the same for the baptism of Jesus (Mk.1:10) and the baptism of the eunuch (Acts 8:39). Also when one is baptized he puts on christ (Gal.3:27) of which is necessary for the wedding of Mat.22:11-14. Also,concerning baptism and works, baptism is a commandment of Christ(Mk.(16:16) and is not of works but of duty (Lk.17:10).
You have a very good presentation and I would like for you to consider including the above in it. Thanks.
Honest question. So we are saying God can't save unless we are baptised. That means God isn't all powerful. He needs men to help save people. To do the baptizing. Really?
@@VictoriaLeigh1990 It is not that He can't, but, it is that He won't. God's word is plain concerning baptism for reasons of His own, and it is not ours to question His will.
Thank you. It is amazing that you have offered this insight. It must be from the Holy Spirit because the exact , and I mean exactly down to the same reference of scripture has come to me concerning baptism. Thank you for your input, I plan to use it for sure.
@Soldier4JesusChrist if the Lord Jesus Christ says “he that believes AND is baptized shall BE SAVED” (Mark 16:16a), then who are we to argue with what God’s word has said?
He didn’t say “he that believes and is saved, shall be baptized”… nor does the scripture ever say anywhere that baptism is a symbol.
Baptism is FOR the remission of sins..
actually, repentance AND baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, is for the remission of sins. But without faith, neither one of those have done anything. And if one does not even believe, why would he bother to repent, OR to be baptized…
“but he that believeth not, shall be damned” (Mark 16:16b)
That’s why Jesus didn’t just say “he that is baptized shall be saved”.
If you desire to enter into covenant with God through the blood of Jesus Christ, then you must be buried with him, which only happens through baptism in WATER.
If you desire more clear information on how to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, that the apostles preached, feel free to write to me :)
If baptism wasn’t crucial to salvation, then why does the writer of Hebrews tell us that it is one of the principles of the doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 6:1,2)?
Think about that.
@Soldier4JesusChrist “you need to read the Bible as a whole to understand” ……
No, my friend, God needs to give you the understanding first to receive anything from His word…
The Bible says,
“a man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.”
(John 3:27)
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: 👉for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”👈
(1 Cor. 2:14)
And since you like to disobey and lie about the truth, things that are plainly written, you haven’t been given the understanding…..
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:
👉A good understanding have all they that DO his commandments:
His praise endureth for ever.”
(Psalm 111:10)
Not only did Jesus Christ command his disciples to baptize, but even Peter did, because he OBEYED the word of the Lord….
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
👉And he commanded them👈 to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
(Acts 10:47-48)
Baptism absolutely accompanies salvation…. God words says it very clearly…..
1 Peter 3:20-21 says that the flood in the days of Noah was a type of baptism wherein God saved eight by water…. Then literally says “baptism does ALSO now save” :
“The like figure whereunto even
👉baptism doth ALSO now SAVE US👈 (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
(1 Peter 3:21)
And just so we’re clear, I was born again in 2014. And it wasn’t by my repenting… that’s not what God’s word says about how a man is born again…
But let’s see if you can tell me how and when it really happens, according to what is written…
And then you can tell me how I don’t read Bible “as a whole” after I show you FROM the SCRIPTURES how it happens.
Thank you your reply.
Rivers, I thought the overall presentation was very good. However, I would like to make a few comments. First, when you talk of baptism being necessary for salvation, there is an important adjective that you left out. That is baptism is "generally" necessary for salvation. That is in the anglican formularies and it is important to convey that or else one will think that you are speaking in absolute terms. It is the ordinary means but our Lord is an extra ordinary God, he works ordinarily and extra ordinarily. It also explains that thief of the cross and cornelius, both who were regenerated without/prior to baptism. Second, to clarify the pentecostal view of the Holy Spirit: They belief that John 3:5 is talking of new birth which they belief is a distinct experience than the baptism in the Holy spirit which they believe is a post-regeneration experience. Third, Anglicanism adheres to both baptismal regeneration and justification by faith alone. You made a comment that could easily be interpreted as denial of sola fide. So I am asking for furthur clarification on your part. I admit that it takes careful nuance with both this doctrines but it is important to clarify.
I think he says that it is "generally necessary" in the previous video
@@AZVIDE0Z He may have, but if someone did not hear that video and heard only this video, one may come away with impression that anglicans believe that every deceased unbaptized person is damned. The qualifer is important and will clear away some of the confusion on this matter. Overall, River's presentation was very good.
agree
I am apostolic pentecostal and as far as regeneration goes it is based on what's called oscillary repetition which basically means to restore something to its original state.
Repentance followed by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ causes remission of sins. How this occurs is that during water baptism the Holy Spirit remits our sins by spiritually circumcising our conscience, removing the guilt from past sins ,and restoring it to its original childlike sensitivity to sin.
Spirit baptism is to be sought in prayer and when God answers your prayer and fills you then you must surrender that last vestige of your will, your tongue. The Word says that the tongue is the body's most unruly member that no man can tame. Man can't but God can.
The seeker yields their tongue to the Holy Spirit until He takes control of it ( tames it ) and enables them to speak in the spiritual language our English translation calls " tongues".
Once this happens it triggers the baptismal overflow and the Holy Spirit joins with our spirit ever to remain within us.
Lastly, the new birth consists of two baptisms that make up one baptism, water and Spirit. Paul spoke of " One Lord, One faith, and one baptism " ( Eph. 4:5 ). He also spoke of the doctrine of baptisms ( Heb. 6: 1- 3 ).
Either these two verses contradict each other or there are two baptisms that make up.the one baptism.
Just to play devil's advocate here, How do we know the thief on the cross wasn’t baptised? The Bible doesn’t say he was-but it doesn’t say he wasn’t either. The thief knew Jesus had done nothing wrong, that he was Lord and was going to his kingdom after he died. Would that not suggest the thief was familiar with Jesus and his apostles? Even if the thief wasn't baptised, he had lived his whole life under the Old Covenant. The sacraments, such as Christian baptism and the Eucharist, are part of the New Covenant, which was not fully in place until after Jesus had died (Heb. 9:15-18, Acts 19:1-6). Just sayin...... :)
You do hold to this still, right?
Yep
I will also add that repentance and faith must accompany baptism. I believe if one has repented and believed, but tragically dies before they come to understand about baptism, or have a chance to have it done, they would be with the Lord, but if they have been baptized without repentance and faith Being accountable people, that they would not be.
10:53 the passage in Ezekiel shows us that God indeed Baptizes us and other verses like Titus 3:5 calls water baptism as faith.
So which is God baptizes us since the Lord says “I will sprinkle you.. ”
So it is Him who baptizes us! We receive it like infants not doing anything but being baptized by external force.
We should tell those people about this who thinks that Baptism is a works based salvation when in fact it is called faith by St. Paul in his letter to Titus.
New Kngdom Media, Sir, first may I ask whether your Church teach that baptism is mandatory for salvation? After your confirmation I will give you my further comments on your teaching. Thank you
Thank you for this, God bless you!
You connect water to baptism and so far I follow, reading John as a whole is fascinating, and this passage is most probably about that. But your connection between baptism and the giving of the Spirit is weak. I think this passage carries the simple Christian message, that you are saved by baptism AND faith, and faith is what is connected to receiving the spirit in John 7, this he spoke of the spirit which those who believe would recieve. You are saved by water AND Spirit, not Spirit IN water, and not Spirit AND Spirit.
John baptizes with water, Jesus will baptize with spirit. Beginning of chapter 4 states clearly that Jesus did not baptize himself, only his disciples did "on his authority", so Jesus baptized, but Jesus himself did not baptize. Therefor, holy Spirit is clearly counted away from this water baptism at least, becasue it explicitly says that Jesus did not baptize himself at this time. Not to say that the Christian baptism did not change after his death, but to say that the baptisms mentioned around this Nicodemus-story very clearly teaches something else than giving of the Spirit in water baptism. Furthermore, the giving of the Spirit is connected to laying on of hands, not baptism specifically. Baptism is linked to Christ's death, and therefor forgiveness, and the waters might also in a sense be an image of the giving of the Spirit, and being forgiven sure opens up a clean temple for Him to dwell in, but the examples in the bible clearly separates these events by saying they went out of the water, the baptism is done, then they lay hands on them and that's when they recieve the Holy Spirit. Same thing with Ezekiel - God will sprinkle clean water on them: Yes, that might very well be baptism, and that will clean them from their idols and sins, but he will do more than clean them - he will also give them a new heart and further more give them the Holy Spirít.
May God bless you and your followers
Very good and easy to follow explanation of the teaching of your Church. I always thought Anglicans believed that they received the Holy Spirit at Confirmation.
While all believers should be baptized as part of their Christian life, the early church did not always practice immediate baptism for new believers. Rather, they waited until after the catechumen had completed their catechesis which could take 3 years. Was the Church being careless in regards to these catechumen's eternal salvation? What would happen if they were suddenly killed or died before they completed the teaching?
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD): "But before you are baptized, there is a list of teachings by way of introduction, that you may know what the Faith is, in which you are to be baptized." (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 1, 4)
The Apostolic Tradition (attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, 3rd century AD): "Let him who is to be catechized, having learnt all these things, be brought to the water. And they shall all pray over him, and laying their hands upon him, they shall exorcise the devil." (Apostolic Tradition, 20)
Early baptismal liturgy had three main components: 1) Renunciation of Satan and Profession of Faith (Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, 2) Baptism in water , and 3) annointing with oil and laying on of hands. Followed by the newly baptized Christian receiving their first communion. It seems clear that the sealing of the Holy Spirit is associated with the annointing of oil and laying on of hands. In Acts 19, we can read where the Holy Ghost was not received after baptism, but with the laying on of hands. This annointing of oil and laying on of hands is now assocatied with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
So when we think of Baptism as recorded in the New Testament, it wasn't just about the immersion or affusion in water. The idea of splitting these three parts of the baptismal liturgy into three separate Sacraments was not part of the early church, but seems to have developed when baptizing infants became the defacto time when most baptisms occurred after the Council of Carthage made it orthodox to do so (Canon 2).
If receiving of the Sacrament of Baptism was thought to be black and white in regards to who would enter the kingdom of God, wouldn't there have been more of an emphasis by the 2nd century to immediately baptize new believers? It doesn't appear so based on the historical record.
GREAT!! WAY TO SPREAD THE TRUTH!
No sorry but he got some things wrong. Mostly
@@truthgiverandfinder3246 No.. You don't know what baptism is then
@@jasonrollon8907 yes.... I do and you have been reading up on the NT then because it gives the word baptism uts real meaning which means to 'dip' or 'go into' or 'bury' or 'immerse' and it's not strictly tied to water alone. It means all kinds of stuff like fire and wind and dirt and snow and sand and blood and metal and wood etc. That word later on was defaulted biased to only water instead of its true meaning which is to all kinds of stuff including elements that are antithesis to water like wind and lava though lava doesn't exist biblically but outside.
@@truthgiverandfinder3246 it does mean to be immersed l agree.. so God tells us baptism is immersion of water and spirit John 3:4. Now if you think there is more than one baptism then you need tell God in ephesians 4:5 that there are two types of baptism not Me. Your argument to me is nothing talk to God
@@jasonrollon8907 no wrong strawman and you are forcing water into one sentence it doesn't belong and word baptism into another sentence it doesn't belong. God Yahweh The Lord says nothing of that you're just scratching following foolish church invented tradition of post nicean time and looking to the dumb vatican instead of the Bible and yes protestants are right here baptism is meaningless. Ps I am not Protestant. I am True Christian Evangelical Unitary aka first to second century AD christian NT Christian.
I think the whole point of this is that the salvation comes from God and God alone (you can't be reborn by your own effort) This is similar to young ruler conversation in Mark. God himself will baptise you with water (living) and spirit. Only He can clean you and give you a new heart, that's why the comparison was made between Nicodemus conversation and John the Baptist's baptism. John the Baptist finally mentioned this "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven". Water baptism is our declaration to die to ourselves and proclaim we are now living a new life and it comes from faith in Him, not a way of salvation, as the true cleansing and life only come from the living water, from God, when you have put your faith in Him and die to yourself
Water= brought into his fellowship ( baptism symmbolized this for millinia) and recieving the spirit of genuine love.
Spirit= going out in love/ sharing his love( god is spirit, god is love) Our new life is this.
Lutherans believe it's about baptism
So did Calvin, but wouldn't commit to it because he felt it undid quite a bit of his theology. Almost every commentator worth his salt believes it's a reference to water baptism.
Very good!
Like he said water and Spirit is seen throughout the New Testament in water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit usually by the laying on of hands. Here is a more complete list:
John 4 Christ disciples were water baptized and had the promise of the future gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2 the crowd after believing the gospel message were water baptized and received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8 the Samaritans were water baptized and then later by the apostles received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9 Paul receives the Holy Spirit and is water baptized.
Acts 10 Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit and are water baptized
Acts 19 disciples of John the Baptist are water baptized into Christ and receive the Holy Spirit
Most importantly in Christ baptism there was water and the Holy Spirit present.
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. - Hebrews 6:1-2
Water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands are mentioned as elementary doctrines of Christnnafter faith and repentance in a order of salvation.
Yes, the Ezekiel prophecy of being sprinkled clean by clean water and receiving the Holy Spirit is fulfilled in baptism.
let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with CLEAN WATER.
- Hebrews 10:22
Notice its our actual bodies washed in actual water. "Clean water" is used to make reference to the prophecy of Ezekiel and probably that the physical water is accompanied by the blood of Christ that cleanses us inwardly like purifying waters used by Old Covenant priest was mixed with blood and/or ashes of a sacrifice.
Then how did the theif on the cross go to heaven just by simply believing in Jesus
You don't need baptism to make it in heaven
When Nicodemus came to Jesus that night, Jesus knew Nicodemus and the other Pharisees "rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of John" (Lk.7:29-30)
To refuse John's baptism was a rejection of salvation.
But for those who submitted to John's baptism, Jesus promised would "go" into the kingdom (Mt.21:31-32). That is, when it would come with power on Pentecost (Mk.9:1).
Remember, Jesus warned Nicodemus that if he was not born again of "water and Spirit," he could not enter into the kingdom."
John's baptism granted entrance into the kingdom. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Jesus was referencing baptism when he said "water" in Jn.3:5.
At this time, both John and Jesus were baptizing thousands a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4-5; Jn.4:1-2).
When the day of Pentecost came, is when Jesus translated these "people prepared for the Lord" into the kingdom. Later that day, Luke records the 3000 new converts were "added unto them" (Acts 2:40-41).
This Meaning, Jesus translated the apostles, and everyone baptized under John's baptism, who remained faithful into the church when Pentecost dawned. Then, those who gladly received Peter's word saved themselves by being baptized. As people were converting to Christ (Acts 3:19), Jesus added them to those he previously placed in the kingdom.
Later, Peter explains Jn.3:5 in his first epistle to the saints.
"Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently:
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever" (1Pt.1:22-23).
First, notice our souls are purified when we obey the truth. Not when we believe the truth, but when we obey the truth, through the Spirit.
Being born again by the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in our initial conversion as He works on our hearts through the Word of God. When we obey the truth, our souls are purified.
Just as when Jesus was speaking the truth to Nicodemus, the Holy Spirit was working through the Word of God.
"Unless a man is born of water (baptism/obedience) and of the Spirit (through the Word of God) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
I am nuanced. I do believe that baptism is a requirement, and if anyone willingly neglect it, they could definitely be lost because of the ax narratives as well as the apostles, I believe it should be also done in the name of Jesus Christ, which will definitely or probably cause an uproar, but oh well. Father, son, and Holy Ghost are titles and relationships, but not the one name in Matthew 28:19, but anyway, I digress. I believe that one is justified at the point of faith, according to Romans, four versus 11, and following, and I also believe that the regenerative process has begun according to act 11 and the people are given repentance to life, but there are so many baptismal, imperative, scriptures, that it’s not even funny, like act 2:38, 22:16, Mark, 16:16, and yes, I do believe that it should be in the Bible, one Peter 3:21, Romans 6-3:6, Galatians 3:27, act 10:48, etc. The conversions of the early church look like this. You repented, and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, We’re baptized in his name and filled with his spirit and that is still how it should be today. Though I do believe that there are exceptional circumstances, a.k.a. Luke 7:30, 23:43, act 10:48, one Corinthians 15:29, etc., I do not believe that water baptism can be knowingly, willfully neglected. This is because life is also imparted when we come up out of the water, compare John 3:5 with Romans 6-3:6. Also think about one Corinthians 6:11, and Titus 3:5. So I do believe that justification is at the point of faith, and that we are forgiven, but when we are water and spirit baptized, the Lord is making us new and imparting life to us, and empowering us to live overcoming lives. Why not get all that he has for us? Let’s not be satisfied to be forgiven, because that was an old covenant experience as well, but let’s be progressively conformed into the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. So extreme Baptist and extreme churches of Christ wouldn’t like me because I really don’t land on either side, but I do not give anyone an out who would refuse water baptism. It is one thing to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus. It is quite another to come fully into the church, into his kingdom, and into the fullness of his divine plan for us in the body of Christ.
Without faith baptism is useless
What about John 3v16-18?
According to these verses, Salvation comes though believing, just like Paul clearly wrote in his epistles. There are very few verses that are questionable. Most verses clearly teach belief for Salvation. Baptism doesn't save us or cleanse our sins.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Dear Mr. River,
If your explanation of John 3:5 is true, can you please explain why this these verses people who didn’t receive the Holy Ghost when they were baptized?
Acts 8:14-17 KJV
[14] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: [15] Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: [16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) [17] Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Because there is no timing on reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit - and it was transmitted by the laying on of the apostles' hands. There are people, even in the church, who read Acts 2: 38 and think that "remission of sins" and "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" occur simultaneously. I do not believe that is true. New Kingdom got most of it right, but missed the boat on that one.
Pentecostals believe its water baptism for salvation
Some do
What about Romans 10:9?
Romans 10 is teaching what those Romans needed to continue in to be saved. If you want to hear what else happened when they were saved, looking at past tense instead of future tense (like chapter 10) read Romans 6.
@@trebmaster We are saved by faith in Christ. There are many verses stating this. To claim baptism saves is to claim what Christ did on the cross is insufficient.
@@ShepherdMinistry You are committing the fallacy of the false binary choice. Baptism is the ordinary (not absolute) means in which God offers his grace, faith is means in which one receives that grace. Your pitting baptism against faith is not scriptural. To say that baptism’s saving provision undermines the sufficiency of the cross is neither scriptural nor logical. The scriptures link baptism with the cross (Rom.6). The sufficiency of the cross is not be confused with the efficiency (application) of the cross. Baptism no more “adds” to the cross than faith “adds” to the cross. The Word of God is also necessary for salvation, does thAt add to the cross? Certainly not. The very man (Luther) who was know for the doctrine of justification by faith alone, also taught baptismal regeneration. They are complimentary not contradictory to each other.
@@petros810 If a man repents and believes in Christ and then goes to get baptized but is hit by a car and dies, is he saved?
@@ShepherdMinistry Yes! As I stated previously, to say it is ordinarily necessary does not mean absolutely necessary. God work’s ordinarily but also extra-ordinarily. One can be saved without baptism, but it is the normative means that God offers his grace to us. To a affirm the exception is also to affirm the general rule.
It's not about H20 . Read John 4. Baptism is not always talking about water .
If i can answer in the same scripture brother because you give people 5 verses to all, turning pages indicate that you are still searching for JESUS, will you agree that GOD kingdoms here on earth exist in the day when you are born? the jesus you know now still not reigns 🫵 ready?
You missed a bit. They didn't receive the Holy Spirit through Baptism but through Paul laying his hands on them.
But what about Luke 3:16? John the Baptist says, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
John baptises with water, but Jesus baptises with the opposite.
Christ, by His disciples, baptized many folks in water like John did. See John 4:1-2
Interesting! Thanks
@@fernandoperez8587 they baptized but not jesus water dunked at all. It was peter and the others that did.
Jesus baptizes you with holy ghost
@@truthgiverandfinder3246Baptism of fire is hell fire, keeep reading!!! Judgment
Born Again will let you see, born of water and spirit will let you enter. There is four birth here, one is implied and the three are mentioned. The implied birth is the birth they have in Adam. I said they because we are not born a sinner but born righteous because all are born again when Jesus was resurrected from the dead. 1 Peter 1:3. Born of water is believing in the name of Jesus to understand that God is the one who caused us to be born again not Jesus. Born again is a flesh kind of birth similar to Adam's birth. We cannot use this flesh birth to enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to Flesh and Spirit gives birth to Spirit. BORN OF WATER is to be BORN OF GOD by believing that Jesus is the Christ - 1 John 5:1-8
Greetings, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord..
At the 10:37 mark of this video you said
“the second they’re baptized, the Holy Spirit comes upon them”..
That’s not accurate. It says that AFTER Paul had laid hands on them they received the Holy Ghost.
It is possible to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost during baptism, but that is not always the case.
The one who has obeyed the gospel by being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, because of their faith, now has the promise of the Father (Acts 2:39), and can receive it.
But someone can receive it even BEFORE being baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
Some may have to pray after being baptized to receive it…
“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”
~ Luke 11:13
Definitely NOT about baptism
Yes John 3:5 is actually baptism, but a different kind of baptism wherein the said "water" coming down from above(from heaven) unto believer. Until out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water(John 7:38). Being "born of water and of the Holy Spirit happens at the same time", not a different events. This event is the new birth of our spirit from the Spirit of God as God's children. As flesh gives birth to flesh, the same the Spirit gives birth to spirit...I saw in my bare eyes that in both births there is "water"... because water is life.
(John 3:11- "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen,...)
That's not baptism then. That word "berrrpttterrrzzummm" is meaningless and placeless here.
The water jesus is speaking of is metaphoric using himself as water that he gives its the same in John also with the woman at the well. Where he says water to drink and no more thirsty. It's antithesis to baptism in general here and really a debaptize out of water or away from water. Moreike jesus is a pool to swim and get refreshed on a hot day. And spirit can mean either Holy Spirit the Lord's or God Jehovah's Spirit or Jesus's soul possessing you. Which seem almost more likely then Holy Spirit possibly. Born is metaphor clearly in plain. "Born" here in John 3 is terminology not a regular word. The author put it metaphor of everyday life to of course convey his message like all well writers. Johanine author.
So plainly John is opposing false ritual water dunking/pouring/splashing for false religious purposes. Jesus is the water in John 3 and we must drink it or swim in it. And Spirit clothe oneself with it he jesus gives as John says in the whole book in the 21 chapters.
There is only one baptism. Ephesians 4:4-6- “Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in the hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, . One God and Father of all…”
@@truthgiverandfinder3246 Unfortunately, not a single early Christian - some of whom were contemporaries of the apostle John and other who knew contemporaries of John - agrees with your take on the passage. They, without a single exception, all said that it refers to water baptism for the remission of sins. That, and instrumental music in worship, are two things on which there is unanimity. Why none of them saw it your way is indeed an enigma.
@@brendanjobe6895 okay you are so wrong right there no and Fred not that passage in John right there does not say anything about baptism at all in fact it's very anti-baptism you can't twist what it says in John 3:5 in fact the context early Christians even understood this and even Jews who were who left Christianity understood this it has nothing to do with baptism at all you are basically not setting any sources and you're just making that claim out of nowhere there's not not only no one agrees with you but basically hundreds of really Christians saw it like that
@@truthgiverandfinder3246
Me: "Unfortunately, not a single early Christian - some of whom were contemporaries of the apostle John and other who knew contemporaries of John - agrees with your take on the passage."
You: "okay you are so wrong right there"
That's very easy to prove. Find one who agrees with your position - or that of Edwin, the original poster. I can rattle off a dozen who actually lived and wrote within the first three centuries after Jesus that all agree with my position, and some lived just three or four generations after Jesus.
You: "in fact the context early Christians even understood this"
NAME ONE. Your assertions (and mine) count for nothing. Back it up.
"you are basically not setting any sources"
That's because you haven't - not because I can't. You simply can't. That's why you haven't.
Paul when he says "baptized to christ" refutes the water debunking theory. Paul earlier in Corinthians 1 says water baptism is useless.
Baptizo in Greek koine means go into or immerse its not strictly tied to water and it can also be anti-water too. Press into or insert is also meaning for baptizing its never water or liquid its dry and fire and grass and solid substances too as well as wind and clothes.
Later passage says closed with Christ doesn't mean you put on Jesus's clothes when he was walking with his disciples Peter James and Thomas just means basically coming to the group coming to the Fulda terminology Testament in the Bible majorly enormously has metaphors and figurative language that will convey a message it's how people convey messages.
Where in 1 Corinthians does Paul say water baptism is useless?
@@lhw8506 1 Corinthians 1-2
@@truthgiverandfinder3246 Like chapters 1 and 2 or 1 Corinthians 1:2 ? The importance of baptism is shown throughout the entire new testament so I very much doubt it. e.g. Acts 22:12-16, 1 Peter 3:20-21, Acts 2:37-38, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, 1 Corinthians12:13, Galatians 3:27 and especially Ephesians 4:4-6
@@lhw8506 those are some of those are not even water baptisms a lot of those are just use of terminology cuz the word baptized doesn't just have water has dryness that has fire it has Spirit has Soul it has dirt it has spirit
@@lhw8506 again your arguments pathetic and plus 1st Corinthians chapter 1 and 2 refutes the idea that says not important unimportant the Fate not fake requirements that are disgusting your arguments pathetic and doesn't help your claim
This has nothing to do with baptism
Early Christians unanimously say differently. Of course, I can't see why we should take the word of dozens of them, a few who knew John personally and more who knew people who had known John. And they also were familiar with Greek and Greek idioms and how they were used during that time period. Maybe they all missed it, and you came along 2,000 years later and got it right.
No its not baptism ☝️
You're confused.
Peter and the disciples baptized but they weren't baptized and many many other biblical Christians including the late crucified guy next to Jesus in Luke he wasn't either yet he had salvation. So again baptism doesn't do anything but damns and defiles with filthy water. Debaptize yourselves all out jesus name and other I debaptuze you all out and pull all the gross water off. Water is for drinking and swimming and jesus wises that in John 3 exactly.
You: "the late crucified guy next to Jesus in Luke he wasn't either yet he had salvation."
You made the statement. Proving that the thief was never baptized with either John's baptism or Jesus's baptism is quite a different story. Obviously he knew something of Jesus. So, anyway, prove your statement.
@@brendanjobe6895 oh he didn't and by the way the disciples weren't baptized either and neither were many early Christians baptism is basically a ritual of of choice just like Eucharist and other things it has nothing to do with salvation it's a sign of joining in just like washing up the feet by your standard you need to crucify yourself it's a sign of change but it's only for your outward expression you don't have to do it in many ways you shouldn't have to do it and you don't need to and don't do it but they do it out of it are showing respect or basically showing of a joining of the group or joining up the new belief or faith or religion
@@brendanjobe6895 I did prove my statement buddy born of water refers to natural birth because guess what comes with the baby out of the womb water the cells and excretions is liquid water and it's and it's in the context right there and there's nothing else about water other than just that one little siding right there and makes no sense unless it's referring to the womb and it's natural birth and it's actually saying don't be born of water but be born of spirit you can't just make up cuz they'll be saying born again and again but it says born again once and only once just once and it's referring to be born of the spirit means have the Holy Spirit on you
@@brendanjobe6895 no it's the same story dude you don't know what you're talking you're believing in false Church tradition it's laughable even an early Christians didn't believe that you have not said a single source and nothing in the context says this
@@brendanjobe6895 BIG life breaker is that your so called Bibles today are forgeries and frauds and fakes all over. Like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 and 1Corinthians 14:34 and handful of others like Matthew 28:19 where Jesus never said "baptize" or "father, son, and holy spirit" never ever any fake "head" ? just one God and using a blessed man Jesus as a set up son as a representative of the Lord with His message. True and Original passage of Matthew 28 is 'Go now and make disciples in my name.'
Dont read another scripture the words of my Jesus can stand alone.