A visitor to my blog, Ryan, left some comments on my post, What does it mean to be born of water? If you haven't read that post already, you might read it now. For people new to my blog, A Sure Word – now at 2Peter119.blogspot.com – is the relaunch of my blog of the same name, formerly published at rkbentley.blospot.com. Some of the posts I write now are simply updated versions of posts I'd written there years ago and the born of water article is one such post. When it was first published (here), it was fairly widely read (about 6,700 views) and sparked a lot of conversation. I try to reply to comments whenever I can but time does not always allow it. On that post, there were a couple of comments to which I didn't reply. Ryan asked my thoughts on those visitors points. Since baptism is a subject of some importance, I thought I'd make my thoughts on the matter the topic of another post. My apologies to Ryan that it took me a while to reply.
One visitor, Paul, seemed to generally agree with my conclusion that “born of water” is a reference to natural birth. However, he had a few other questions about baptism. In his own words:
I'm an A/G minister revisiting baptism. I share your conclusion about being born of water (though it raises the question of what happens to unborn babies - a whole other subject). What strikes me is that in Acts the church baptized people immediately. Why? A/G doesn't believe in sacraments. We refer to water baptism and communion as ordinances. But why did they always baptize immediately?... Could it be that there is a grace associated with baptism, but it is associated with the obedience of it (Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousnes). This comes as a result of baptism, a blessing enabling them to follow Jesus? Do you see any Biblical warrant for that?
As I said in my original post, I don't believe "born of water" is a reference to baptism. Therefore, a discussion of baptism is a little off subject of the point I made in my original article, However, since you asked, I'm happy to address your points about baptism.
In Matthew 3:1-3, we read, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”
Christians generally understand that John was the herald, prophesied by Isaiah, who would prepare the way for Jesus. But how exactly did he prepare the way? I've given it a lot of thought and prayer and I believe he tried to move people away from the Old Testament system of sacrifices into the New Testament of Christ's death on the cross as the payment for our sins (Matthew 26:28).
Of course, the OT covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision. It was symbolic of the shedding of blood, necessary for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). In the new covenant, it is the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, that paid the penalty of sin once and forever. Baptism is a public act that identifies believers with His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:4). John was telling the people that the time of sacrifices is passing and that the Kingdom of God is available to those who repent and believe in the finished work of the Messiah.
Paul's comment seemed to focus on the seeming urgency of baptism, immediately after believing, as a possible indication grace associated with baptism. It's true that many baptisms were done immediately after a profession of faith. I believe this is more likely has to do with the “go and preach” ministry of the Apostles. Peter preaches, people believe, he baptizes them, then he's on to another city. I really don't think there's much more to it than that.
If we think of believers recorded in the gospels, we have few specific examples of baptism. We know that Jesus preached the same message of repentance as John and more people were being baptized by the disciples of Jesus than by John (John 4:1) but think of all the people whose baptisms aren't mentioned. Certainly, the repentant thief wasn't baptized. The blind man healed by the pool of Siloam believed in Jesus and worshipped Him (John 9:35-38), yet no mention is made anywhere of his baptism. No mention is made of the baptism of the demon-possessed man from the land of the Gadarenes (Mark 5). No where does it talk about Lazarus being baptized, nor is sisters. Zacchaeus, Jairus, the Roman Centurion, the woman at the well, and many others believed in Jesus but don't read where any of them were baptized. So, even though we know people were being baptized during Jesus' ministry, the fact that no mention is made of any of these believers being baptized suggests that it was simply their profession of faith that was the most important thing. They may have been baptized at some point but there was certainly no urgency about the matter.
Another visitor, Les Potter, made the following comment concerning being born of water:
One thing that affects the dynamic of the passage is the presumption that the kingdom of God is salvation. Obviously, the KOG includes salvation. But if you consider it throughout Scripture, it cannot be synonymous with salvation itself. Consider JN 3:3 for example. If the KOG is salvation and if “born again” is salvation (which it is) then it is saying you must be saved to see salvation. Another thing to consider is how that “born” means “brought forth”. In other words, born = fruit. A child is not made alive at birth. But when it is brought forth the evidence of that life is there. Is this not what John was saying in MT 3:8? The fruits they were to bring forth are “born” of a regenerate soul. They are the substance and evidence of Biblical faith (Heb 11:1).
I appreciate how hard it can be to fully express one's thoughts in a short comment on a blog. I'm not sure I fully understand everything Les Potter is trying to get across. Here are my thoughts – my apologies if they don't quite hit the mark.
I'm not sure if the term, Kingdom of God, is ever considered synonymous with salvation. But as I sit here and write about it, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is. Generally speaking, most people consider it synonymous with heaven. It also could describe God's will being established on earth. Finally, I believe it includes the Person of Jesus Christ. This could be the subject of an entire article by itself, but it would have to be another time.
I hadn't considered before the idea that “born = fruit.” I can't say I completely agree but neither do I completely disagree. The Bible often uses the mundane as a metaphor for the divine. Marriage, for example, is a picture of Christ's relationship with His church. When the Bible talks about the creation of Adam, it says God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. I believe that paints a wonderful picture of how we are dead in trespasses and sin, but are made alive by the quickening of the Holy Spirit. God's command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply helps us to identify with our relationship to our heavenly Father. Of course, there is the subject passage where Jesus compares the spiritual birth to the physical birth.
I know that the Bible sometimes uses “first fruits” to describe the first born of a flock. However, as I read John 3, I don't immediately see a connection between being born of water and bringing forth fruits meet for repentance.
There you have it. These are my thoughts in reply to Paul's and Les Potter's comments from more than a year ago. I apologize they are late but I thank them and Ryan for the opportunity to discuss the matter more.
No comments:
Post a Comment