Jesus Said "It Is Finished"

[Nova2216]

I'm curious, why don't you understand Colossians 2:12 as having occurred 2,000+ years ago? It seems plain enough. It's a terrible proof verse for water baptism.

Then there is:

Rom 6:4,

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
​

The words "we are buried" are in the Greek Aorist tense, which indicates a one time event in the past, in this case, when Jesus died. Most English translations use the past tense to align more closely to the Greek texts. It says the same thing as Colossians 2:12.

In general it is interesting how so many try to nullify a verse in Ephesians.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

Is it somehow thought that God choosing me to be holy and without blame was a mistake on His part? Did He somehow not realize I'd commit too many sins after my new birth?

All in all, it is sad that so much of Christendom does not believe in the completeness of Jesus' work on our behalf.

The text (Col.2:12) does not say it happened 2000 years ago.


One cannot die to sin, be buried, and be forgiven until they have first been born physically.

I cannot understand how you think you were born again 1000s of years before you ever was born or sinned.

If you have not yet sinned you do not need to be forgiven or saved.



Babies are born innocent according to (Ezekiel 18:20).

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

14 ... I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Ps.139:14)

 

[Nova2216]

Notice what (Rom.6:16,17) teaches.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.


1. ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine

2. Being then made free from sin

3. ye became the servants of righteousness.


Believe + Baptism = Saved (Mark 16:15,16)

Baptism doth also now save us (1Peter 3:21)

 

[rrobs]

The text (Col.2:12) does not say it happened 2000 years ago.

Col 2:12,

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.​

When was Jesus buried? We were buried with him.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:​

It does not matter what we think. What matters is what God thinks, and apparently He thinks we were buried with Jesus. People need to change their thinking to agree with God.

I cannot understand how you think you were born again 1000s of years before you ever was born or sinned.

If you have not yet sinned you do not need to be forgiven or saved.

The sins I commit are not the problem. Sin itself is the problem.

Rom 5:12,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

When Adam sinned he doomed all of mankind to death. That was not God's intention when He created Adam, but He did give Adam free will and unfortunately Adam played way to loose and caused sin to enter the scene and death by that sin.

We have a sin nature and therefore we commit sins. As I said, the sins we commit are not the problem. It's the sin nature that causes us to commit sins and eventually die. A dog barks, cats meow, cows moo, and sinners sin. That's why our sin nature flesh had to die and be buried with Jesus. God then created a new creation within those who do Romans 10:9-10.

2Cor 5:17,

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
​

Gal 6:15,

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
​

God did nothing with our fleshy sin nature beyond killing it and burying it. He did not try to improve it. He destroyed it and made a whole new creature. That is why it is so wrong for Christians to try and improve their flesh by making resolutions and promises to stop watching porn, drinking, using drugs, hating others, etc. Those are the works of the flesh and they will always be the works of the flesh.

Instead of trying to improve our flesh, we are told to walk in the spirit. That simply means keeping our eyes on God and not on ourselves. We are told to mind the things of God and not the things of the flesh.

Rom 8:1,

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

What exactly does it mean to walk after the spirit?

Rom 8:5,

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
​

If your mind is on yourself, on how well (or not) you think you are acting to make yourself worthy, you are walking after the flesh. If, on the other hand, you are minding, thinking, about God and the things of God, you will be walking according to the spirit.The porn, drinking, drugs, etc. will naturally fall by the wayside without having to beat your flesh into submission. The more we know about God's love, the more we will want to live a Christian life and be a good example of God's love.

Walking by the spirit is the only way to lead a life that will allow the light of the Gospel to shine forth from you. Anything else is a counterfeit. While a counterfeit may look like the real thing, it most definitely is not.

I'll take the liberty here of quoting Galatians one more time. It is a very simple declaration but which too many fail to see.

Gal 3:1-3,

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?​

Babies are born innocent according to (Ezekiel 18:20).

Ezekiel says nothing about babies being innocent. That is a church tradition that is read into many scriptures, but according to Romans 5:12 babies have the same full blown sin nature we all have and are thus doomed to die.

Jesus was an exception because his seed was not the polluted seed from Adam, but the holy seed God planted in Mary's womb. Jesus, like Adam, started out with a sin free nature. Adam lost it by disobedience but Jesus kept it by obeying every jot and tittle of God's commandments, even to the death of the cross. Jesus, unlike every other human born after Adam, truly had a godly nature, thus qualifying him to be the "lamb without blemish" required to redeem us from death and sin.

God bless

 

[Nova2216]

If you were baptized some 2000 years ago with Christ why does the Lord require you to be baptized again in (Mt.28:18-20) and (Mark 16:15,16)?

That would not make any sense.


* You were baptized with Christ 2000 yrs ago (that's #1).

Then the Lord requires you to be baptized again according to (Mt 28), (Jn 3:3-5) and (Mark 16). This would be baptism number #2.


Now the first baptism is a _________ baptism (that's #1)

The other is a totally different baptism in water (that's #2)


Eph.4:5) says there is one baptism now.


Question - When (at what point) were your sins forgiven?

 

[e.r.m.]

Rom 10:9-10,

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.​

One thing to notice is that our belief and confession are "unto" righteousness and salvation. Our belief, in and of itself, does not save us. Jesus saved us once and for all by his obedience to his Father. Our belief puts us "unto" a place where God can create a new creation within those who do Romans 10:9-10. All of that is possible because of the work Jesus did during his first coming.

Like the old preacher used to say, "ya gotta believe brother." Good advice to those dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1, Col 2:13).

God bless

Then the "completeness" of Christ's work is misleading. He only "completed" His part. God still expects our response to his "complete" work, which the "completeness" doesn't cover. The completeness doesn't therefore apply to baptism, because it's part of that response God expects of us. That "completeness" is only used against baptism, that "completeness" is not used against the other aspects of our response: belief John 6:28-29, repentance Acts 3:19, and confessing with our mouth Jesus as Lord Romans 10:9-10. It's a double standard, that's why it's misleading, and why this commonly circulated argument is never more than a cheap play on words.

 

[rrobs]

Then the "completeness" of Christ's work is misleading. He only "completed" His part. God still expects our response to his "complete" work, which the "completeness" doesn't cover. The completeness doesn't therefore apply to baptism, because it's part of that response God expects of us. That "completeness" is only used against baptism, that "completeness" is not used against the other aspects of our response: belief John 6:28-29, repentance Acts 3:19, and confessing with our mouth Jesus as Lord Romans 10:9-10. It's a double standard, that's why it's misleading, and why this commonly circulated argument is never more than a cheap play on words.

If you want water that's fine, but I was washed by the blood of Jesus, thereby making me as righteous as God Himself.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
​

What more do you want? Water certainly won't hurt but it won't make you any cleaner than the blood of Jesus.

 

[rrobs]

If you were baptized some 2000 years ago with Christ why does the Lord require you to be baptized again in (Mt.28:18-20) and (Mark 16:15,16)?

That would not make any sense.

* You were baptized with Christ 2000 yrs ago (that's #1).

Then the Lord requires you to be baptized again according to (Mt 28), (Jn 3:3-5) and (Mark 16). This would be baptism number #2.


Now the first baptism is a _________ baptism (that's #1)

The other is a totally different baptism in water (that's #2)


Eph.4:5) says there is one baptism now.


Question - When (at what point) were your sins forgiven?

What do you suppose changed with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus? Anything at all? You appear to think not, but I am probably wrong about that. I hope so anyway.

Matt 15:24,

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.​

The gospels were written before Jesus spoke the words of (Mt.28:18-20) and (Mark 16:15,16). Furthermore, he said it to the Jews, not the gentiles and there were no Christians. You are reading other people's mail which is fine in and of itself, but if you take the letter as addressed to yourself, you'll end up in confusion.

I was baptized in holy spirit. Like it or not, so were you (Acts 1:5).

​

Despite the big red letters "The New Testament" appearing before the Gospel of Matthew, the new deal, our deal, didn't begin until the day of Pentecost. That's when holy spirit replaced water. Water was a symbol, a foretelling of the real thing, i.e. getting washed by the blood of Jesus, baptism in holy spirit. As you probably know, much of the OT was a type or symbol of things to come (Col 2:15-16, Heb 10:1). Water did nothing to conquer sin and death. The blood of Jesus did everything.

Heb 7:19,

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.​

 

[e.r.m.]

If you want water that's fine, but I was washed by the blood of Jesus, thereby making me as righteous as God Himself.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
​

What more do you want? Water certainly won't hurt but it won't make you any cleaner than the blood of Jesus.

The "by grace alone, through faith alone" community thrives on play on words (I'm not saying all of them, but enough to make it a pattern for the movement). Again, God's part and our part. When did we EVER say we are not washed by the blood of Jesus? Who EVER said (in the Bible), that the act baptism in Jesus's name Acts 10:47-48 is in opposition to the blood of Jesus? How do make contact with Christ's death? I had already addressed God's part and our part, but with baptism, you went back to saying, it's all God, when you have admitted that men are expected to believe as a response to what God has done. It's duplicitous language that I believe is more a result of "conditioning" than deliberate deceit. A direct answer would be "I know we both believe we are washed by the blood of Jesus, if you want belief and baptism that's fine, but I think our response is belief alone.", which is the issue at stake, instead of our response against what was God's part. (Saying you don't need baptism, it's the blood of Jesus that saves us is exactly the same as saying you don't need faith in Him, it's the blood of Jesus that saves us. Yet faith and baptism are still required, God's part and our part).

I don't know where this dishonest way of speaking was developed, it was certainly before you, it may be hundreds of years old, but it is the low ground to fall back on a misrepresentative play on words.

 

[rrobs]

The "by grace alone, through faith alone" community thrives on play on words (I'm not saying all of them, but enough to make it a pattern for the movement). Again, God's part and our part. When did we EVER say we are not washed by the blood of Jesus? Who EVER said (in the Bible), that the act baptism in Jesus's name Acts 10:47-48 is in opposition to the blood of Jesus? How do make contact with Christ's death? I had already addressed God's part and our part, but with baptism, you went back to saying, it's all God, when you have admitted that men are expected to believe as a response to what God has done. It's duplicitous language that I believe is more a result of "conditioning" than deliberate deceit. A direct answer would be "I know we both believe we are washed by the blood of Jesus, if you want belief and baptism that's fine, but I think our response is belief alone.", which is the issue at stake, instead of our response against what was God's part. (Saying you don't need baptism, it's the blood of Jesus that saves us is exactly the same as saying you don't need faith in Him, it's the blood of Jesus that saves us. Yet faith and baptism are still required, God's part and our part).

I don't know where this dishonest way of speaking was developed, it was certainly before you, it may be hundreds of years old, but it is the low ground to fall back on a misrepresentative play on words.

Saying one does not need water baptism is "exactly" like saying one does not need faith? I don't know how to respond to that, other than saying it's not.

Do you understand Acts to be a transition between the old and new. For example, there is a verse in there that speaking about the early converts (mostly Jews), "You see how many there are that believe and yet are still zealous for the law." And there is another place where Paul castigated the council because they still wanted to keep on circumcising. In general, the early Christians did not yet have the full revelation that Paul would give later and therefore they still worked on their flesh.

 

[Nova2216]

If you want water that's fine, but I was washed by the blood of Jesus, thereby making me as righteous as God Himself.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
​

What more do you want? Water certainly won't hurt but it won't make you any cleaner than the blood of Jesus.

God ties water and blood together in (Jn 19:34) (1Jn 5:6).

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.


6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.


Thanks

 

[Nova2216]

Water is not what washes sins away.

Baptism (in water) is "when" the blood of Jesus washes away sins. (Rev.1:5) (Eph.1:7)

That's what happened in (Acts 2:38) and in (Acts 22:16).

In both cases forgiveness of sins came at the point of water baptism (not before).

(Acts 2:38)
1. Repent,
2. and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
3. for the remission of sins,

(Acts 22:16)
1. arise,
2. and be baptized,
3. and wash away thy sins


Notice (Rom. 6:17,18).

1. ye were the servants of sin,
2. but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (Rom, 6:3-6)
3. Being then made free from sin,
4. ye became the servants of righteousness.

Notice one is not righteous until the point of water baptism according to (Rom.6).

 

[e.r.m.]

Saying one does not need water baptism is "exactly" like saying one does not need faith? I don't know how to respond to that, other than saying it's not. It sounds more emotional than right division of the scriptures to me.

The emotion you are sensing is the exhaustion of having to explain this ad nauseam. It is rightly dividing scriptures and it is "exactly" like saying one does not need faith. You don't compare man's response, faith/baptism, etc. vs. the blood of Christ. Both the blood of Christ (God's part) and faith/baptism (our part) are part of getting saved. It's wrong to say "Either faith/baptism saves you, or the blood of Christ does". You can't pit God's part against our response, because both parts are involved, albeit God's part was much larger. Faith/baptism is our part in the process and it is not used, nor can it correctly be accused, as an attempt to replace God's part. We all acknowledge that Jesus shed His blood for our sins (and the Father sent Him to do so), and we place our faith in Him/are baptized as a response to His sacrifice. No one says "I reject Jesus's blood in favor of having faith/baptism in Him." That makes no sense.

The repetition/redundancy in this segment was deliberate to drive the point home that faith/baptism is our part and does not detract from, but is in line with, what God has done.

Do you know how long one has after receiving holy spirit to get water baptized? Does the holy spirit wear away if it's not watered quick enough?

The question is in error. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit Romans 8:9 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 comes at baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38-39. Therefore, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 'on' Cornelius and company, is not an exception to this.

 

[rrobs]

Water is not what washes sins away.

Baptism (in water) is "when" the blood of Jesus washes away sins. (Rev.1:5) (Eph.1:7)

That's what happened in (Acts 2:38) and in (Acts 22:16).

In both cases forgiveness of sins came at the point of water baptism (not before).

(Acts 2:38)
1. Repent,
2. and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
3. for the remission of sins,

(Acts 22:16)
1. arise,
2. and be baptized,
3. and wash away thy sins

Do you understand Acts to be a transition between the old and new. For example, there is a verse in there that speaking about the early converts (mostly Jews), "You see how many there are that believe and yet are still zealous for the law." And there is another place where Paul castigated the council because they still wanted to keep on circumcising. In general, the early Christians did not yet have the full revelation that Paul would give later and therefore they still worked on their flesh.

Notice (Rom. 6:17,18).

1. ye were the servants of sin,
2. but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (Rom, 6:3-6)
3. Being then made free from sin,
4. ye became the servants of righteousness.

Notice one is not righteous until the point of water baptism according to (Rom.6).

Where's the water in Romans 6? Looks to me like obeying from the heart is the deciding factor. No water anywhere outside your opinion.

The question is not whether or not baptism is necessary. The question is the medium in which we are baptized. How in the world any Christian does not understand baptism in holy spirit replaced baptism in water is beyond me. They must think John's baptism in water is more efficacious than Jesus' baptism in spirit.

 

[Nova2216]

Do you understand Acts to be a transition between the old and new. For example, there is a verse in there that speaking about the early converts (mostly Jews), "You see how many there are that believe and yet are still zealous for the law." And there is another place where Paul castigated the council because they still wanted to keep on circumcising. In general, the early Christians did not yet have the full revelation that Paul would give later and therefore they still worked on their flesh.


Where's the water in Romans 6? Looks to me like obeying from the heart is the deciding factor. No water anywhere outside your opinion.

The question is not whether or not baptism is necessary. The question is the medium in which we are baptized. How in the world any Christian does not understand baptism in holy spirit replaced baptism in water is beyond me. They must think John's baptism in water is more efficacious than Jesus' baptism in spirit.

Rob - Do you understand Acts to be a transition between the old and new.

Nova - I would word it in this manner.

Acts is a transitional book from the OT Law to the NT Law beginning in (Acts 2).

The NT Law was established in (Acts 2). This NT law which was spoken of in (Jer.31:31-34) was to come at some point in the future (Isa 2:1-5) (Joel 2:28). We see this in (Acts 2:38,47). Those who obeyed verse 38 were placed into the kingdom (the church) verse 47. The church is where the saved are located.

Each and every conversion in the book of Acts was to be done in the very same manner (1Cor.1:10) (Phil. 3:16). If not the Lord would be a respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11).


There is no answer for the power in which (Acts 2:38) and (Acts 22:16) hold.

24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. (Acts 28:24)


Rob - Where's the water in Romans 6?

Nova - It's in the words "Buried and Raised Up". (Rom.6:4)

"Water" is the only thing which will fit.



Rob - The question is not whether or not baptism is necessary.

Nova - Yes it is. B/c if one is saved at belief then baptism is not necessary for salvation.



Thanks

 

[Nova2216]

Repent + Baptism ===== Forgiveness of Sins (Acts 2:38)

Repent + Be Converted = Blot out Sins (Acts 3:19)

Arise +++ Baptized =====Wash Away Your Sins (Acts 22:16)

Believe + Baptism ======Saved (Mark 16:16)

------------Baptism ======Saves (1Peter 3:21)


Since baptism saves (1Peter 3:20,21).

"faith alone" does not save. (James 2:24)

 

[rrobs]

Repent + Baptism ===== Forgiveness of Sins (Acts 2:38)

Repent + Be Converted = Blot out Sins (Acts 3:19)

Arise +++ Baptized =====Wash Away Your Sins (Acts 22:16)

Believe + Baptism ======Saved (Mark 16:16)

------------Baptism ======Saves (1Peter 3:21)


Since baptism saves (1Peter 3:20,21).

"faith alone" does not save. (James 2:24)

Not one verse you've quoted mentions water. Since Jesus said that John baptized in water but he'd baptize in holy spirit, I'd think it makes way more sense that baptism in holy spirit is the subject of all those verses, not water. It is an arbitrary insertion into the scriptures to say any of those verses are talking about water.

Baptism is not the issue. Yes, we must be baptized. Like it or not you have been baptized in holy spirit and that is where your salvation lies. Nothing wrong with water, but it has been superseded by holy spirit according to Jesus himself in Acts 1:5. It only stands to reason that any subsequent mention of baptism is talking about holy spirit.

There are a few places in Acts where they actually do mention water, but I've already explained that Acts is a transitional book between the old and the new. It took some people a bit longer to realize the new did away with the old, but that is just how life goes. It would have naturally taken some time to understand such a monumental change as that between the OT and the NT.

Read the whole chapter to see what the works were that James was talking about. There is no mention of water or any baptism at all for that matter in this chapter of James.

 

[rrobs]

The question is in error. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit Romans 8:9 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 comes at baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38-39. Therefore, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 'on' Cornelius and company, is not an exception to this.

You're not suggesting that one can have holy spirit dwelling withing yet not be saved because of no water baptism?

 

[Nova2216]

Do Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27 Refer to Spirit Baptism?

By Wayne Jackson

Water connected to salvation

Numerous passages specifically connect salvation with a process that involves water.

Paul declared to the Ephesian saints that they had been cleansed by the washing of water with the word. Luke’s record of the Ephesian conversions certainly makes the mode of Christian baptism analogous to that of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3-5; cf. John 3:23).

This conforms perfectly with Jesus’ description of the new birth, which likewise involves water (John 3:3-5), as well as Titus 3:5 which speaks of the “washing of regeneration,” i.e., rebirth. First Peter 3:20-21 certainly connects the baptism that involves becoming saved with water.

Finally, a vast host of scholars—even those who do not view baptism as a condition of salvation—admit that the passages surveyed above relate to water baptism. The works of Thayer (1958, 94), Danker et al. (2000, 164), Kittel et al. (1985, 93-94), and Robertson (1931, 362, 298) readily come to mind. The late F. F. Bruce, who was professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester in England, wrote:...

Do Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27 Refer to Spirit Baptism?

 

[e.r.m.]

You're not suggesting that one can have holy spirit dwelling withing yet not be saved because of no water baptism?

Correct, I am not suggesting that.
It doesn't say Cornelius and company had the Holy Spirit dwelling within at that moment, it said the spirit came 'on'. Another example of the Spirit came 'on' is 1 Samuel 19:19-24.

 

[rrobs]

Do Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27 Refer to Spirit Baptism?

By Wayne Jackson

Water connected to salvation

Numerous passages specifically connect salvation with a process that involves water.

Paul declared to the Ephesian saints that they had been cleansed by the washing of water with the word. Luke’s record of the Ephesian conversions certainly makes the mode of Christian baptism analogous to that of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3-5; cf. John 3:23).

This conforms perfectly with Jesus’ description of the new birth, which likewise involves water (John 3:3-5), as well as Titus 3:5 which speaks of the “washing of regeneration,” i.e., rebirth. First Peter 3:20-21 certainly connects the baptism that involves becoming saved with water.

Finally, a vast host of scholars—even those who do not view baptism as a condition of salvation—admit that the passages surveyed above relate to water baptism. The works of Thayer (1958, 94), Danker et al. (2000, 164), Kittel et al. (1985, 93-94), and Robertson (1931, 362, 298) readily come to mind. The late F. F. Bruce, who was professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester in England, wrote:...

Do Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27 Refer to Spirit Baptism?

I'm sorry, but Acts 19 does not say water is necessary for salvation. If anything it would indicate that water is not sufficient to save us. It specifically says that Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus. Nothing there about water. I think Jesus made it clear that baptism in his name meant baptism in holy spirit.

Also I'm sorry there is no mention of water in Titus whereas there is a mention of holy spirit. The key word is "figure" in verse 21. I've mentioned that the whole idea of washing in the OT law was a figure or a foreshadowing of the real thing that would come in the future. In this case water was the figure that foreshadowed the real regeneration by the resurrection of Jesus who spoke about baptism in holy spirit taking the place of baptism in water.

I can see how John 3:3-5 might be taken as talking about water baptism but there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

1) Jesus was talking to Jews before his resurrection. Baptism in holy spirit was not available when Jesus spoke those words.

2) If it was talking about water then it would appear to contradict clear cut verse such as Acts 1:5 which makes a clear distinction between water and spirit. All other verse on the same subject must agree. I think Acts 1:5 is crystal clear whereas John 3:3-5 is not quite as clear. Many scholars say that the water spoken of in John 3 is amniotic fluid from the first birth into this world. That is the first birth, but to be saved one must get born again. Other verses say that the new birth is baptism in holy spirit.

If you want to follow God's program in John, I hope you've never looked at a woman with lust. If so, you must pluck out your eyes if you want to make it to paradise. Masturbation is a sin. If you've ever masturbated with your right hand, you better cut is off.

In any case, you can't pick and choose. If you think Jesus was speaking to you in John 3, then you must also heed his warnings in Matthew regarding the plucking and severing of body parts. Personally, I prefer the NT grace over OT law. At least that way I don't have to walk around with a long face because I don't feel worthy. And I can keep my eyes open to see those to whom I witness. I can also take their hand in my right hand to pray for their salvation.