[adam7gur]

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Has Paul lost it here or are we missing something?
He says Christ did NOT send me to baptize but he DID baptize even though a few , but he DID baptize!If Paul thought that baptism is a NO , he wouldn't have baptized no one !
But Paul says what he says about Christ NOT sending him to baptize , because he had another mission.

And that's all for me Tj3 because I have no intention at all to keep this going.I simply said my opinion based as I think better on Scripture.You have your opinion based as you think on Scripture and I respect that.
May the Holy Spirit guide us ! God bless you!

[Akoue]

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

Of course it is symbolic. I've never heard of anyone who claimed that being baptized is literally to die on a cross in Israel and to be resurrected in a tomb. In that sense it is a figure of Christ's death and resurrection. From this it does not follow that the ritual act does not confer grace. And if it does, why deny that grace to children? Baptism isn't just a public declaration of my inner belief-state--it isn't narrowly psychological in the way some here have described it: It is a supernatural reality.

And I've never met anyone who thinks that the water itself is salvific, nor that it alone confers grace. Prayers are said over the water precisely for the reason that it is the Holy Spirit, acting in and through the medium of water, who bestows grace. To parse the two as you seem to be doing is totally artificial and leaves you attacking a view that nobody holds--at least, nobody sane.

As an historical aside (Tj, I know you don't like these, but others may be interested): The view that the sacraments, including baptism, are dispensable, was held by some early Christians. It was the view of some of Pelagius's more ardent followers. If the only historical precedent I could find for my view were hyper-Pelagianism, I would seriously wonder whether I hadn't misunderstood some key passages of Scripture. (A version of the view was also held by some Gnostics, who despised anything material and found repugnant the notion that God would act through matter. But, of course, they were docetists who denied that Christ really had a human body.)

[Tj3]

Of course it is symbolic. I've never heard of anyone who claimed that being baptized is literally to die on a cross in Israel and to be resurrected in a tomb. In that sense it is a figure of Christ's death and resurrection. From this it does not follow that the ritual act does not confer grace.

So far so good. We agree.

And if it does, why deny that grace to children?

You just said that it does not.

"the ritual act does not confer grace"

But if you are saying why deny baptism to children as a symbol of dedicating them to the Lord - I agree - why not?

Baptism isn't just a public declaration of my inner belief-state--it isn't narrowly psychological in the way some here have described it: It is a supernatural reality.

I keep asking the same question - where is this in scripture?

And I've never met anyone who thinks that the water itself is salvific, nor that it alone confers grace.

I have.

Prayers are said over the water precisely for the reason that it is the Holy Spirit, acting in and through the medium of water, who bestows grace.

Where does it say in scriopture that the Holy Spirits does anything through the water?

As an historical aside (Tj, I know you don't like these, but others may be interested): The view that the sacraments, including baptism, are dispensable, was held by some early Christians.

Many ideas were holds by people in the early church. Some were sound, but we find that the NT warns about some errors and heresies even being taught within the early church, even back as early as that. Thus the fact that some views were held within the early church by some professing believers does not endorse a doctrine. Therefore whether this is true, it does not impact the validity of baptism as a means of salvation to whatever degree you choose to claim it.

[De Maria]

You just said that it does not.

"the ritual act does not confer grace"

Actually, what Akoue said is:

From this it does not follow that the ritual act does not confer grace.

I keep asking the same question - where is this in scripture?

Several places. It is clear that Baptism is necessary for salvation:

John 3 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

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:

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Several places. It is clear that Baptism is necessary for salvation:

How many times must we deal with these?

John 3 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, 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. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism. For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument.

But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim. First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context, let alone cutting a verse in half and only looking at the first half of the verse. What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned. But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

I could add that those who believe and have red hair are saved, but those who do not believe are condemned. The truth is that the part about baptism is not an essential according to this passage.

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:

Already addressed in this thread (post 27)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1439338

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

What washes us?

Rev 1:5-6
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
NKJV

Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Notice that this refers to scripture not baptism "..by the word".

[De Maria]

How many times must we deal with these?

Am I twisting your arm?

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, 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. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

He sure is speaking of water Baptism. We know this because further on in the same Chapter, we see both John and the disciples of Jesus baptizing.

Further, we know because water is associated with birth. Water is the visual symbol revealing the Spiritual effect of Baptism.

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism. For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument.

But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim. First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context, let alone cutting a verse in half and only looking at the first half of the verse. What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned. But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

Because those who don't believe will not be baptized. It is evident. It is faith and works. Without works one doesn't have faith. Without baptism one doesn't have belief.

A person who believes Jesus will be baptized. A person who does not believe Jesus will not.

I could add that those who believe and have red hair are saved, but those who do not believe are condemned. The truth is that the part about baptism is not an essential according to this passage.

That's your INTERPRETATION. But the Scripture is clear. Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. If you do not believe, you won't be baptized and therefore won't be saved.

What washes us?

Rev 1:5-6
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
NKJV

The washing is a reference to Baptism. Unless you've literally been taking a bath in Jesus' blood.

Notice that this refers to scripture not baptism "..by the word".

Again, the washing is a reference to Baptism. Unless you've literally been washing in the word

[Tj3]

He sure is speaking of water Baptism. We know this because further on in the same Chapter, we see both John and the disciples of Jesus baptizing.

Read again. The whole context of that area of the chapter up to verse 21 is speaking about the gospel. It was not until later, in a different place that they were baptizing":

John 3:22-23
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
NKJV

That is like saying that because I did something in May, that something that I said in April was in context with that event.

Because those who don't believe will not be baptized.

I know a number of people who were baptized because it was the thing to do, and not because they were saved.

A person who believes Jesus will be baptized. A person who does not believe Jesus will not.

Not necessarily true either. I know people who are believers and yet have not been baptized or were not baptized for some time after receiving Christ. Not everyone comes to the realization of the importance of baptism as a symbolic act of obedience at the same time.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, it is fact and you have no way to argue against it.

Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. If you do not believe, you won't be baptized and therefore won't be saved.

It does not say that if you are not baptized you won't be saved. You are adding to what scripture says. Indeed you won't find that anywhere in the Bible.]

The washing is a reference to Baptism. Unless you've literally been taking a bath in Jesus' blood.

So even if scripture says nothing about baptism and nothing about water, but speaks about something else entirely - you say that it must be speaking about baptism because your theology demands it. The truth is that you are bending this to fit your theology. Our sins are washed away by the blood on the cross - not by water.

Now, let me asked you a question.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
NKJV

What is the one essential baptism - the Holy Spirit? Or water?

[De Maria]

Read again. The whole context of that area of the chapter up to verse 21 is speaking about the gospel. It was not until later, in a different place that they were baptizing":

John 3:22-23
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
NKJV

That is like saying that because I did something in May, that something that I said in April was in context with that event.

It could very well be in context with that event. I bought a Christmas present in July. The entire reason why John put both in the same Chapter is because they are the same context.

I know a number of people who were baptized because it was the thing to do, and not because they were saved.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. We don't teach faith without works nor do we teach works without faith. They are both needed.

Not necessarily true either. I know people who are believers and yet have not been baptized or were not baptized for some time after receiving Christ. Not everyone comes to the realization of the importance of baptism as a symbolic act of obedience at the same time.

We consider it an "efficacious symbol". A symbol that effects what it symbolizes.

No, it is fact and you have no way to argue against it.

I think I'm doing pretty well.

It does not say that if you are not baptized you won't be saved. You are adding to what scripture says. Indeed you won't find that anywhere in the Bible.

John 3
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So even if scripture says nothing about baptism and nothing about water, but speaks about something else entirely - you say that it must be speaking about baptism because your theology demands it. The truth is that you are bending this to fit your theology. Our sins are washed away by the blood on the cross - not by water.

Not MY theology. Jesus said so.

Now, let me asked you a question.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
NKJV

What is the one essential baptism - the Holy Spirit? Or water?

According to Jesus, it is of water and the Holy Spirit.
John 3
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Therefore, you are making a false dichotomy in your question.

[Tj3]

It could very well be in context with that event. I bought a Christmas present in July. The entire reason why John put both in the same Chapter is because they are the same context.

Maybe you don't know this, but John did not put the verse and chapter divisions in the book. A simple read will tell any discerning reader the context.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Okay so afr.

We don't teach faith without works nor do we teach works without faith. They are both needed.

Works are the evidence of faith. Just as baptism is something we do in obedience after we are saved.

We consider it an "efficacious symbol". A symbol that effects what it symbolizes.

Then you do not understand what a symbol is.

I think I'm doing pretty well.

If you are happy with not providing any rebuttal, then so be it.

John 3
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Can't you come up with something new? This has to rank with one of the most commonly and easily refuted passages in scripture, and yet it appears that those who believe in the error of baptismal regeneration quickly have tio resort to repeating these weak arguments because, in reality, they have so little to hang their hat on.

Therefore, you are making a false dichotomy in your question.

No, both are baptisms and scripture says that only one is necessary. Why won't you answer? Which one is essential for our salvation?

I am not surprised at your response. Folk who believe in baptismal regeneration often avoid this like the plague.

[De Maria]

Maybe you don't know this, but John did not put the verse and chapter divisions in the book. A simple read will tell any discerning reader the context.

Lets see:

Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus from verse 3 to verse 21. In verse 22, John says:

22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Works are the evidence of faith.

OK.

Just as baptism is something we do in obedience after we are saved.

After we are saved? Where is that in Scripture.

Then you do not understand what a symbol is.

I'm pretty sure I do.

If you are happy with not providing any rebuttal, then so be it.

Again, I think I'm doing pretty well.

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism.

Water is the symbol of birth. Therefore, the water which washes over us, symbolizes the new birth in the Spirit which is actually occurring in Baptism.

Different topic.

Again, it is the same topic. It is your interpretation which is problematic.

Can't you come up with something new?

This stuff is 2000 years old.
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

This has to rank with one of the most commonly and easily refuted passages in scripture, and yet it appears that those who believe in the error of baptismal regeneration quickly have tio resort to repeating these weak arguments because, in reality, they have so little to hang their hat on.

We hang our hat on God's word. Not on our own understanding:

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

No, both are baptisms and scripture says that only one is necessary. Why won't you answer? Which one is essential for our salvation?

I am not surprised at your response. Folk who believe in baptismal regeneration often avoid this like the plague.

I've given my answer and provided my Scripture. Now its your turn.

[N0help4u]

That's your INTERPRETATION. But the Scripture is clear. Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. If you do not believe, you won't be baptized and therefore won't be saved.

DeMarie you seem to be contradicting yourself from what I can see
Or do you believe in adult baptism?
You say believe and be baptized. You will not be baptized if you do not believe. So that implies you are saying you are baptized when YOU can make the decision rather than as an infant.

[Tj3]

Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus from verse 3 to verse 21. In verse 22, John says:

22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Yep, that is what I said - you skipped 16 verses, and tried to tie two unrelated events in two different locations at two different times together.

After we are saved? Where is that in Scripture.

The better question is, where do we find baptism as being required before salvation? The answer is nowhere in scripture. But we do have examples of salvation without baptism - indeed most people in the Bible who are shown as being godly persons are in fact not said to be baptised. Here is one specific case:

Acts 10:46-47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

Water is the symbol of birth. Therefore, the water which washes over us, symbolizes the new birth in the Spirit which is actually occurring in Baptism.

That is your private interpretation. That, unforturnately for your position, is not what scripture says.

This stuff is 2000 years old.
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

We hang our hat on God's word. Not on our own understanding:

Then where in scripture does it say that unless your are baptized, you are going to hell?

[Akoue]

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that tells us not to baptize infants. There is no real debate about adult baptism: Catholics baptize adults too.

Just a brief word about "symbol": The ancients understood a sumbolon somewhat differently than we do today. A symbol was understood to be a falling together (sun + ballein) of a sign and a reality that transcends the sign and which the sign signifies. So, in the case of baptism, the washing with water is the sign and the grace of the Holy Spirit is the reality. The two are one, they coincide in the ritual act itself. So they recognized no distinction between a baptism of water and a baptism of the Holy Spirit: Baptism in water IS baptism in the Holy Spirit. As I said earlier, the attempt to prise the two apart would have struck them as artificial, as it did when Gnostics did so.

There's been a lot of talk about the temporal order of priority regarding belief and baptism. But here again, we tend to think of belief rather differently than was common in the ancient world, or even before Descartes. We think of belief in terms of individual psychology; but in the ancient world, and among early Christians in particular, it was quite common to talk about numerically the same belief being held by many people, so that various individuals could be in numerically the same belief-state. When an infant is baptized, it is recognized to be a believer, to be initiated into the ekklesia--the community of the faithful--and is credited with the beliefs of the ekklesia until such time as it appropriates those beliefs for itself and receives the sacraments of communion and confirmation or rejects those beliefs and leaves the ekklesia of its own accord. My point, in other words, is that there has been a real tendency throughout the present discussion to slip into anachronism, to assume that doxa and pistis were understood by first century Christians as psychological states in a narrow sense. They weren't (and there's been a ton of work on this over the last century or so to back it up--the words didn't mean to ancient Greeks what their modern English equivalents mean to us).

[Tj3]

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that tells us not to baptize infants. There is no real debate about adult baptism: Catholics baptize adults too.

I have not seen anyone debating against baptizing infants as long as it is done scripturally with the understanding that it does nothing to save the child.

Just a brief word about "symbol": The ancients understood a sumbolon somewhat differently than we do today. A symbol was understood to be a falling together (sun + ballein) of a sign and a reality that transcends the sign and which the sign signifies.

So far the word symbol has only been used in our discussion and in the context of our understanding to describe what scripture says.

So, in the case of baptism, the washing with water is the sign and the grace of the Holy Spirit is the reality. The two are one, they coincide in the ritual act itself. So they recognized no distinction between a baptism of water and a baptism of the Holy Spirit: Baptism in water IS baptism in the Holy Spirit.

There is a specific distinction made in scripture. You cannot simple make a claim regarding the connotation of the a word in the minds of some people at some point in time, and then build a doctrine around that in contradiction to what scripture says. I don't buy that.

When an infant is baptized, it is recognized to be a believer, to be initiated into the ekklesia--the community of the faithful--and is credited with the beliefs of the ekklesia until such time as it appropriates those beliefs for itself and receives the sacraments of communion and confirmation or rejects those beliefs and leaves the ekklesia of its own accord.

That may be what is held to be the case in your denomination, but you cannot extrapolate that for all professing Christians outside of your denomination. Further, just because tghat is held to be true by some, does not make it fact.

[revdrgade]

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that tells us not to baptize infants. There is no real debate about adult baptism: Catholics baptize adults too.

I probably shouldn't even get into the discussion about baptism because it often causes wrangling due to a really great variety of beliefs and arguments. Why?

... It is a mystery of God and our minds, still corrupted by sin, can't fully encompass His mysteries:

Dt 29:29

29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
NIV

Isa 55:8-9

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
Declares the Lord.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
NIV

God does expect humility about some things we should just following the practices passed down to us from our Christian leaders..... in faith that God will do His work through us.

Ps 131:1-2

My heart is not proud, O Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have stilled and quieted my soul;
like a weaned child with its mother,
like a weaned child is my soul within me.
NIV

I do believe, teach and practice infant baptism as well as adult (by sprinkling, pouring or "dunking") because baptism is a means of grace i.e.. A means by which God's grace acts on a person to bring them salvation. Baptism contains the Word of salvation, spoken over the person being baptised. And where the redeeming word of God is spoken, there is power to be saved.

Ro 1:16-17

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
NIV

Lk 7:29-30

29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)
NIV

[De Maria]

Yep, that is what I said - you skipped 16 verses, and tried to tie two unrelated events in two different locations at two different times together.

There is no skipping. The 16 verses are the end of the very same discussion. Here, let me show you:

John 3
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

A Pharisee named Nicodemus came to Jesus at night to ask a question.

2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

And Jesus answered:

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus didn't understand being born again:

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus explained that one must be born of water and Spirit:

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus goes into more detail saying, don't be surprised:

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

By now we know that born again means baptism.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

But Nicodemus remains perplexed.

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jesus says, "you're an elder and don't understand baptism?

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And Jesus reveals that Baptism is a heavenly reality.

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Which He knows about because He has been to heaven.

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Jesus reveals that He must be crucified.

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

And explains to Nicodemus that he must have faith in Him.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even if he doesn't understand Jesus' words, for Jesus was sent here to save all.

The better question is, where do we find baptism as being required before salvation?

I like the question I asked quite well. Where does it say that one is saved and then Baptized.

the answer is nowhere in scripture. But we do have examples of salvation without baptism - indeed most people in the Bible who are shown as being godly persons are in fact not said to be baptised. Here is one specific case:

Acts 10:46-47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

This is not an example of salvation before baptism. This is an example of receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism.

That is your private interpretation. That, unforturnately for your position, is not what scripture says.

No. That is the Church's understanding since the coming of Christ.

Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

But it shows that the people who knew the Apostles and were taught by the Apostles understood the doctrine just as we do today. And since Jesus said:

Matthew 16: 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We believe His promise that the Church will not fall into error.

Then where in scripture does it say that unless your are baptized, you are going to hell?

It doesn't say it in those words. It says in two places:
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Therefore we believe that Baptism is necessary.

[De Maria]

I have not seen anyone debating against baptizing infants as long as it is done scripturally with the understanding that it does nothing to save the child.

It does for the child exactly as it does for the adult. It removes original sin and brings the child into the family of God.

So far the word symbol has only been used in our discussion and in the context of our understanding to describe what scripture says.

OUR understanding doesn't mean just YOUR understanding. An efficacious symbol does as Akoue describes. It effects what it symbolizes.

There is a specific distinction made in scripture. You cannot simple make a claim regarding the connotation of the a word in the minds of some people at some point in time, and then build a doctrine around that in contradiction to what scripture says. I don't buy that.

No one is asking you to buy it. This is a discussion with the purpose of educating whomever wants to accept the knowledge. Just because you deny it doesn't mean everyone will.

That may be what is held to be the case in your denomination, but you cannot extrapolate that for all professing Christians outside of your denomination. Further, just because tghat is held to be true by some, does not make it fact.

Understood. But the weight of evidence is on our side. We have proved that the early Church understood it that way and you acknowledged it. You even called the Early Church Fathers heretical in that respect. You belittled the ancient truths saying:

Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

But Christianity is not a new invention. It has been around from the time of Jesus Christ.
And just because its old, doesn't make it false.

[Tj3]

There is no skipping. The 16 verses are the end of the very same discussion. Here, let me show you:

Yes, and the context has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism. That is the point. You added in commentary forcefitting baptism into it to fits the needs of your theological system, but the context itself has zero to do with baptism.

I like the question I asked quite well. Where does it say that one is saved and then Baptized.

So I guess that you are conceding that there is no scripture which says baptism is required before salvation.

Many references have been given to you showing baptism comes AFTER salvation including specific references in scripture to people saved before or without water baptism, such as Acts 10.

This is not an example of salvation before baptism. This is an example of receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism.

Scripture says that you cannot receive the Holy Spirit before baptism.

John 14:16-18
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

No. That is the Church's understanding since the coming of Christ.

You saying it does not make it so. I will take scripture over the word of men (or women!)

But it shows that the people who knew the Apostles and were taught by the Apostles understood the doctrine just as we do today. And since Jesus said:

Matthew 16: 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We believe His promise that the Church will not fall into error.

That passage does not promise any such thing, and we have examples of churches even in the NT which fell into error, and we have examples even today.

It doesn't say it in those words.

The problem for your theology is that it does not say it at all.

[Tj3]

It does for the child exactly as it does for the adult. It removes original sin and brings the child into the family of God.

Where does scripture say that infant baptism removes the sin nature from a child. You don't have children do you?

O It effects what it symbolizes.

I note that you have absolutely no scripture to back up that claim. Just your opinion.

No one is asking you to buy it. This is a discussion with the purpose of educating whomever wants to accept the knowledge. Just because you deny it doesn't mean everyone will.

I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

Understood. But the weight of evidence is on our side. We have proved that the early Church understood it that way and you acknowledged it.

I am still waiting for any evidence, and you have proven nothing of the sort. Except maybe in your own mind.

You even called the Early Church Fathers heretical in that respect.

Oh boy - here we go again with the false accusations. I guess you are falling back on the tried and true approach when all else fails. It is sad to see that some folk feel it necessary to use such approaches. But the real question here is will you follow the opinions of fallible men, or will will you follow the word of God? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and follow His word.

[De Maria]

Yes, and the context has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism.

In your opinion.

That is the point. You added in commentary forcefitting baptism into it to fits the needs of your theological system, but the context itself has zero to do with baptism.

I posted the actual Scripture so that anyone can see that Jesus was telling Nicodemus about Baptism and then Jesus' disciples began baptizing.

So I guess that you are conceding that there is no scripture which says baptism is required before salvation.

In those words. But I posted Scripture which says that Baptism is necessary.

Many references have been given to you showing baptism comes AFTER salvation including specific references in scripture to people saved before or without water baptism, such as Acts 10.

Are you conceding that no Scripture says that salvation comes before baptism?

Scripture says that you cannot receive the Holy Spirit before baptism.

John 14:16-18
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

Where does Scripture say that one can't receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism?

You saying it does not make it so. I will take scripture over the word of men (or women!)

The knife cuts both ways. We've agreed on that point several times.

That passage does not promise any such thing, and we have examples of churches even in the NT which fell into error, and we have examples even today.

All except one.

The problem for your theology is that it does not say it at all.

That's a problem for your theology. Remember, we believe in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. For us it is enough if the Scriptures imply the doctrine.