Yes, we obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16; 10:16).In other words by believing
False and your Campbellism theology has already been refuted numerous times on Christian Chat.Yes, indeed, but before we drink that water, we must be immersed in literal water, in the name of Christ, for the forgiveness of sin. All nations, all creation, all that God shall call to himself, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit upon repentance and baptism into our Lord. (Acts 2: 38, 39) God bless.
As the OP has already mentioned, "water" here is a metaphor for the Word of God -- the Gospel.But this we know for certain, one must be born of both water and Spirit to enter the Kingdom. Cornelius received the Spirit.
Water is used in the Bible as an emblem of the Word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. Baptism does not avail to cleanse the heart from defilement, but our Lord did say, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3). Also in Ephesians 5:26, we see washing of water by the word..As the OP has already mentioned, "water" here is a metaphor for the Word of God -- the Gospel.
It is only through the preaching of the Gospel that faith is generated in human hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore both Peter and James call the Word of God the "seed" of the New Birth (see the OP for the Scriptures). And Paul affirms this by saying that Christ sent him NOT to baptize but to preach the Gospel. If water baptism was necessary for salvation, Paul could not possibly have made such a statement. He would have said that Christ sent him to BOTH preach the Gospel and baptize.
Everything you have said is true, as long as we are clear that water baptism is not essential for salvation but for sanctification.Does Jesus need help to save?
Who ordained baptism for all nations, to all creation?
Who authorized making disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe all things commanded. (Matt 28: 18-20)
Was Jesus confused when He said he who has believed the gospel and has been baptized, shall be saved?
Was the Hebrews writer confused when he wrote, “and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation?” (Heb. 5: 9)
Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, but not by faith alone. Faith works through love and hope with God’s works of faith, which He has ordained, to perfect that faith so that it might accomplish God’s purpose. (Gal. 5: 6, 1 Cor. 13: 13; James 2: 17- 24)
God bless.
But that is a given, and quite unremarkable. What the Lord was contrasting was the natural human birth through which all human beings are born sinners with the SUPERNATURAL New Birth by which believers are born of God. In order to be born of God (born of the Spirit, born from above) one needs to be born of (1) water and (2) the Holy Spirit. While water is frequently a metaphor for the Holy Spirit Himself here there are TWO AGENTS involved in the New Birth, so water cannot be the same as the Spirit. However, since water is a metaphor for the Word of God, and the Gospel is indeed called the Word of God, it becomes quite clear that a sinner must hear the Gospel, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and then be born of the Spirit. This is clarified in John 1:11-13:You have to be born of the flesh, in order to be eligible for spiritual baptism.
Correct. But not necessary for salvation. Big difference. As to depending on grammatical subtleties, let's leave that to the grammarians. We should let Scripture interpret Scripture. Notice there is no mention of water baptism here (Acts 16:31), although the ones who believed were indeed baptized immediately (not for salvation but for obedience to Christ).# 42- On the contrary Acts 2: 38 was written as is, to emphasize the necessity of baptism for each and every person who repents.
BTY: Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): *Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.# 42- On the contrary Acts 2: 38 was written as is, to emphasize the necessity of baptism for each and every person who repents. In verse 41 and 47 Peter states that those who received the word were baptized and they were added to the number of those being saved. "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16)
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace states, "Such a view is an acceptable way of handling "eis" but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it." Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pgs 370 This is a nice way of saying the argument is bogus.
God bless
Hi everyone, I'm new here (blacklisted on another christian forum); what I think being born of water means is merely to be born in a physical body which is over 90% water.
I believe that your estimation is correct on this point. Glad to have you join us. Welcome to CC.
I don't believe 1 Peter 3:21 is saying what you're suggesting it does, lets look at it, here is 1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us[e] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long-suffering waited[f] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an anti-type which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
He specifically says "there is also an ANTI-TYPE which saves us". Here is the definition of anti-type-
an·ti·type
ˈan(t)iˌtīp/Submit
noun
noun: anti-type
1.
a person or thing that represents the opposite of someone or something else.
2.
something that is represented by a symbol.
I would think that the 2nd definition would fit the context of this passage best. The fact that we do die to ourselves, the old man, the flesh, the slave of sin, whatever you call it dies at rebirth, and in and by the Spirit you are raised all new, a new man with new desires, new eyes, and new life. This was exactly what I experienced when I was reborn (born of Spirit), and this happened without a man physically dunking me under water. I was baptized in water way before this and wasn't saved, then I was saved without being physically dunked under water. I do not agree with what you're saying here that baptism saves, nothing we "do" saves us aside from believing (and I would say realizing that we can't do life without God and submitting, but I also think that "believing" is a much bigger word than we normally think of it as), baptism no more saves us than circumcision and you know what Paul says about that. I just disagree that the verse you're citing here means what you're saying it means. I just KNOW that I was saved and made new without having been dunked, even though I was baptized again after my true rebirth to publicly proclaim my salvation, but not to earn it. I'm not trying to just argue with you, or just "be right" and "teach", because I like and appreciate your civil tone, well thought and laid out view, and your very apparent love and passion for our Lord Jesus Christ, I just wanted to share why I can't agree with your point here, and share why & how I was saved without any kind of fleshly work. I hope you have a great day sister.![]()
# 42- On the contrary Acts 2: 38 was written as is, to emphasize the necessity of baptism for each and every person who repents. In verse 41 and 47 Peter states that those who received the word were baptized and they were added to the number of those being saved. "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16)
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace states, "Such a view is an acceptable way of handling "eis" but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it." Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pgs 370 This is a nice way of saying the argument is bogus.
God bless