"Works Salvation"

[Red Baker]

@Studyman

Yes, The LAW that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, that required a man who sinned "then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar."

"and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him".

This was the LAW Paul spoke to in Galatians that was ADDED "because" of Transgressions, "Till the SEED Should Come".

The definition of Sin was never changed, just the manner in which forgiveness was provided for, as it is written; "for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more".

So, if the law was added, till the true lamb of God came, did it truly have power to put away sins? Please consider and answer if you can:

The law and its sacrifices "were" types, shadows, and symbols of the future sacrifice of Christ. While they were means of expiation by which the patriarchs testified faith, only the blood of Christ had the actual efficacy to wash away sin.

• Weakness of the Jews' temporary religion: It is so clear that animal blood cannot cleanse consciences or remove the guilt of sin. If they could, they would have ceased to be offered.
• Symbolic Value: The sacrifices under the law were not worthless; they were valid "symbols" or "types" through which believers could "truly" (sacramentally) receive pardon.
• Retrospective Merit: The power of Christ's one sacrifice on the cross extends backward to the beginning of the world and forward to the end, making it the only true sacrifice. The Old Testament believers were by Christ faith and obedience justified as we are, not by the efficacy of animal blood itself.

Men of God from 1450-1800 (through the blessing of the printing press invention) all taught:

• Temporary and Typical: They explains that sacrifices under the law only took away sin typically (representing something else), not really (or literally). They served as a "figure" or "shadow" for the time being, pointing forward to the true, ultimate sacrifice of Christ.
• A "Remembrance" of Sin: Rather than removing sin, They all preached that the yearly repetition of these sacrifices actually served as a "remembrance of sins" afresh.
• The Inefficacy of Law: They all with one voice maintains that the legal sacrifices could not perfect the worshippers, nor could they cleanse or purge the conscience from the guilt of sin.
• Contrast with Christ's Sacrifice: In contrast, they all argues that by his one offering, Christ has actually put away sin, removed our sins from the sight of God, and secured a complete atonement that gives to of God's elect total peace in their conscience that their sin are removed from them as far as the east is from the west, never to be remember again, never.

 

[Red Baker]

@Doug Brents

Wrong. You have failed already.

Wishful thinking on your part Doug. Prove where I have failed ~ you saying that has zero value, you must prove it.

 

[FreeInChrist]

And once again we see the false doctrine of Total Depravity not the true doctrine of the Holy Scriptures as the basis for that analysis.

The idea that Jesus would make being born of the flesh a condition for being born again is ludicrous, if not side-splittingly stupid. Who would be precluded by such a requirement? Answer absolutely none.

Wrong. Jesus was contrasting two different kinds of birth, not giving two saving conditions.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Gospel of John Jesus Himself explains the meaning in the very next verse. Natural birth produces natural life. Spiritual birth produces spiritual life.

His point was that being physically born into Israel, having Abraham as ancestor, or possessing natural life is not enough. A person must also be born from above by the Spirit.

So the reference to water is not “inert” at all. It distinguishes physical birth from spiritual rebirth. Jesus was correcting Nicodemus’ earthly thinking with a heavenly truth.

The irrational view is not Christ’s words, but assuming every mention of water must mean baptism.

So why would Christ establish such an inert requirement? Answer, He wouldn't. The very idea makes Jesus out to be more than a little short on rational thinking.

 

[Jim]

@Jim

Jim, the Lord Jesus never made flesh "a condition for" being born again, never! But, those born of the flesh, (through natural means of Adam's generation, from one person to the next, one generation to the next, etc., must be born of the Spirit, if ever conceived through the first Adam's posterity ~ "before" they can ever see, and do spiritual acts pleasing to God ~ spiritual acts, meaning, the fruits of the Spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5: 22,23...including, but, not limited to them thereunto mentioned.

Verse 5 of John 3 explains verse 3. That is to be born again is to be born of water and Spirit. If born of water is to be born of flesh, then Jesus is definitely saying that being born of the flesh is a condition for being born again. But of course, that makes no sense at all. Thus born of flesh has nothing to do with it and Jesus would never have explained "born again" as born of flesh. So clearly born of water must mean something else.

 

[Jim]

Wrong. Jesus was contrasting two different kinds of birth, not giving two saving conditions.

No, Jesus wasn't speaking about physical birth at all. He was explaining what He meant by being "born again".

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Gospel of John Jesus Himself explains the meaning in the very next verse. Natural birth produces natural life. Spiritual birth produces spiritual life.

His point was that being physically born into Israel, having Abraham as ancestor, or possessing natural life is not enough. A person must also be born from above by the Spirit.

So the reference to water is not “inert” at all. It distinguishes physical birth from spiritual rebirth. Jesus was correcting Nicodemus’ earthly thinking with a heavenly truth.

The irrational view is not Christ’s words, but assuming every mention of water must mean baptism.

Clearly Jesus is describing to Nicodemus what he meant by being born again. He said that being born again (v.3) is being born of water and Spirit (v.5). The phrase born of water and Spirit describes the phrase born again. So, whatever Jesus meant by water cannot have anything to do with flesh - period. So if you don't like water being the water of baptism, you need fo come up with something else because obviously Jesus is not saying that born again has anything to do with physical birth.

 

[Jim]

@Doug Brents

Wishful thinking on your part Doug. Prove where I have failed ~ you saying that has zero value, you must prove it.

No, @Red Baker, You said,

@brightfame52 @Doug Brents @Seabass @Jim @Studyman

The whole of the word of God proves that salvation from sin and condemnation is without water baptism.

You made a statement. That statement is not found anywhere in the word of God. That is your statement; is it not found in the word of God. Therefore, it is up to you to prove that it is true. You must prove it. And of course, you can't.

 

[Seabass]

Both the thief and Cornelius prove salvation is without water baptism Even the Ethiopian eunech professed Faith in the Son of God b4 he was baptized Acts 8:35-38

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Now according to Apostolic Testimony, when one confesses and believes in the Son of God, they have been born of God 1 Jn 5:1,5

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

The Eunech was an overcome and born of God b4 a drop of water on him !

You have been deceived friend

 

[FreeInChrist]

No, Jesus wasn't speaking about physical birth at all. He was explaining what He meant by being "born again".

Clearly Jesus is describing to Nicodemus what he meant by being born again. He said that being born again (v.3) is being born of water and Spirit (v.5). The phrase born of water and Spirit describes the phrase born again. So, whatever Jesus meant by water cannot have anything to do with flesh - period. So if you don't like water being the water of baptism, you need fo come up with something else because obviously Jesus is not saying that born again has anything to do with physical birth.

He said verse 6 FLESH and that refers to physical birth.

Vs 5 unless one is born of water and the Spirit .

Vs. 6 born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The water here is not baptism.

 

[FreeInChrist]

So @FreeInChrist. do you think you understand?

John 3:3​

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

I have been teaching the Nick thing for a very long time.... Starting with way back in GC....

I had posted this....on GC way back

I have been cleaning out some old book marks when I came across one that should have a conversation regarding which IS right and why.

To me, original statements should be observed , as in this case accepting either/or give 2 entirely different meanings.

This is a copy from my online Greek interlinear that is my rapid go to as needed.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3.htm

QuoteJohn 3:3 Answered Jesus and said to him Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born from above not he is able to see the kingdom - of God

From above is ἄνωθεν

If I might interject my own side question at this point before going on....

Nicodemus had come to Jesus and said to him

vs 2. He came to Him by night and said to Him Rabbi we know that from God you have come a teacher no one for is able these - signs to do that You do if not should be - God with Him

It was immediately after this that Jesus did not confirm or deny what Nick was saying but went in an entirely different direction
in vs3 by telling him about being born from above.

Why? Was this because Jesus knew what Nick was seeking and just jumped into it?

The verses in this entire exchange... while being perfectly clear do not answer any of Nicodemus' questions directly.

To the reason for this particular thread.

A question from another forum I had saved was

From https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....sv-translates-be-born-from-above-to-is-born-a

Quote

Why is it that in John 3:3 the ESV translates "be born from above" to "is born again"?

I was told that ESV uses the oldest Greek manuscripts to translate the scripture literally from Greek into English.

So why is it that in John 3:3 the ESV translates "be born from above" to "is born again" in John 3:3?

Is it "born again" in the oldest manuscripts?

If we check the interlinear bible { John 3:3 interlinear } and the Greek we never find Jesus using the words "born again".

John 3:3 interlinear

Which transcript is the interliner bible using?

ANSWER NUMBER 1 of 2)

QuoteThe matter in dispute here is NOT the Greek text but the translation of a single word, ἄνωθεν (anōthen). This is a simple preposition for which BDAG provides four basic uses:

1. in extension from a source that is above, from above, eg, Mark 15:38, Matt 27:51, John 19:23, 3:31, 1:17, 19:11,
James 3:15, 17.
2. from a point in time marking the beginning of something, from the beginning, eg, Luke 1:3, Acts 26:5.
3. for a relatively long period in the past, for a long time, eg, Acts 26:5
4. At a subsequent point in time involving repetition, again, eg, Gal 4:9, John 3:3.

In the above extract from BDAG I have only included the Bible references and have not included BDAG's numerous extra Biblical sources and examples.

The problem in John 3:3 is should ἄνωθεν (anōthen) be translated "from above", or "again"? In this case, both are theologically correct (see also John 3:31). My personal view is that, probably, both are intended: converts need to be born again (= anew) but NOT as Nicodemus suggested from earthly origins, but "from above". Indeed, as the foot notes in the ESV explicitly point out,

QuoteOr, from above, the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above, also verse 7.

Ellicott notes (in part):

Quote Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.--Our translators have followed the ancient expositors in
giving the alternative renderings "born again" and "born from above" (margin). Chrysostom notes the two currents of
interpretation in his day; and in our own day the opinions of scholars, whether we count them or weigh them, may be
equally claimed for either view. There can be no doubt that the Greek word (ἄνωθεν) is found with both meanings. It is
equally certain that St. John elsewhere uses it in the local sense "from above" only (John 3:31; John 19:11; John 19:23);
but these instances are not sufficient to establish an usus loquendi, and the sense here, and in John 3:7, must be taken in
connection with the meaning of the verb. (Comp. the same word in Luke 1:3, "from the very first," and Galatians 4:9,
"again.") What has not, perhaps, been sufficiently noted is, that the Greek word is not the true key to the difficulty, and
that its double sense has led men to seek the meaning in a wrong direction.

The Pulpit commentary makes extensive remarks about this as well - too many to be repeated here.

[/size]

ANSWER #2

Quote2
As the notes in the ESV state, the Greek is ambiguous: (I have got to ask.... who determines anything to be ambiguous.
Someone who cannot compute why a word would mean something
said in a certain way?)

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) [ESV]

John 3:3 Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse 7

ἄνωθεν can mean from above, from the first, or anew, over again:



The ESV chose "again" because that is the meaning which best fits the immediate context: (WHO? Who says it does. )

Quote Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his
mother's womb and be born?" (John 3:4)

Nicodemus took what Jesus said as "again." If the translator chose "born from above," Nicodemus' reaction makes little sense. The Interlinear translation chooses "above" because as the discussion progresses it becomes clear that is the meaning which best fits everything Jesus says (John 3:7-9). However, that choice only "works" if the one verse is viewed in isolation.

In actuality the ambiguity of the Greek is accurate as the only way a person may be born again is as a work of God. So if one is born again, it was an act of God (from above):

QuoteBut to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

[/size]

Like you seem to be pointing out in your last sentence, there is a way around the Nicodemus dilemma. This is, that to be "born from above" could be regarded as a second birth and be called "to be born again", if "to be born from below" was the label applied to the first birth. – Constantthin Jul 27, 2019 at 7:28

And guess what I have found you saying in my historic searches.......

Quote from: grams on Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 16:01:239 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Dear Grams, that verse does not cancel out water baptism as a channel of a salvation that believers enjoy in being baptized into the religion of Jesus Christ, per Jesus' own teaching from Mark 16:16. If you believe that water baptism is not necessary, or something that one can take OR leave, then you by your own confession show lack of faith, and without question, lack of biblical knowledge. There IS a sense that water baptism DOES indeed bring "a salvation" to an understanding heart, that those who have never been baptized CANNOT enjoy, IMPOSSIBLE~or Mark 16:16 spoken of by Jesus Christ should be penknife from the holy scriptures. Peter DID NOT suggest that Cornelius and his household should consider baptism, BUT he COMMANDED them to be so! Every believer post Calvary, who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ enjoy a glorious salvation that even Abraham DID NOT enjoy, impossible dear soul.

No, Jesus wasn't speaking about physical birth at all. He was explaining what He meant by being "born again".

Clearly Jesus is describing to Nicodemus what he meant by being born again. He said that being born again (v.3) is being born of water and Spirit (v.5). The phrase born of water and Spirit describes the phrase born again. So, whatever Jesus meant by water cannot have anything to do with flesh - period. So if you don't like water being the water of baptism, you need fo come up with something else because obviously Jesus is not saying that born again has anything to do with physical birth.

He said verse 6 FLESH and that refers to physical birth.

Vs 5 unless one is born of water and the Spirit .

Vs. 6 born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[FreeInChrist]

No, @Red Baker, You said,

You made a statement. That statement is not found anywhere in the word of God. That is your statement; is it not found in the word of God. Therefore, it is up to you to prove that it is true. You must prove it. And of course, you can't.

Just tossing this out there.

You are going by the wrong standard.

A truth does not need to appear as one exact sentence in Scripture in order to be taught by Scripture. The Holy Word often conveys truths through the totality of its teaching, by direct statements, repeated themes, examples, and necessary implication.

The question is not whether that exact wording appears verbatim, but whether the doctrine is taught by the whole counsel of God.

By your standard, many accepted doctrines would fail simply because the precise phrase is not written in one verse.

Many biblical truths are taught by the combined witness of the text, not by one verbatim line.

Demanding one exact sentence is not exegesis. It is an artificial rule the Bible itself does not require.

 

[Jim]

@Studyman

So, if the law was added, till the true lamb of God came, did it truly have power to put away sins? Please consider and answer if you can:

The law and its sacrifices "were" types, shadows, and symbols of the future sacrifice of Christ. While they were means of expiation by which the patriarchs testified faith, only the blood of Christ had the actual efficacy to wash away sin.

• Weakness of the Jews' temporary religion: It is so clear that animal blood cannot cleanse consciences or remove the guilt of sin. If they could, they would have ceased to be offered.
• Symbolic Value: The sacrifices under the law were not worthless; they were valid "symbols" or "types" through which believers could "truly" (sacramentally) receive pardon.
• Retrospective Merit: The power of Christ's one sacrifice on the cross extends backward to the beginning of the world and forward to the end, making it the only true sacrifice. The Old Testament believers were by Christ faith and obedience justified as we are, not by the efficacy of animal blood itself.

Men of God from 1450-1800 (through the blessing of the printing press invention) all taught:

• Temporary and Typical: They explains that sacrifices under the law only took away sin typically (representing something else), not really (or literally). They served as a "figure" or "shadow" for the time being, pointing forward to the true, ultimate sacrifice of Christ.
• A "Remembrance" of Sin: Rather than removing sin, They all preached that the yearly repetition of these sacrifices actually served as a "remembrance of sins" afresh.
• The Inefficacy of Law: They all with one voice maintains that the legal sacrifices could not perfect the worshippers, nor could they cleanse or purge the conscience from the guilt of sin.
• Contrast with Christ's Sacrifice: In contrast, they all argues that by his one offering, Christ has actually put away sin, removed our sins from the sight of God, and secured a complete atonement that gives to of God's elect total peace in their conscience that their sin are removed from them as far as the east is from the west, never to be remember again, never.

Lev 4:20 'He shall also do with the bull just as he did with the bull of the sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.

Lev 4:26 'All its fat he shall offer up in smoke on the altar as in the case of the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he will be forgiven.

Lev 4:31 'Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat was removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to the LORD. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

Lev 4:35 'Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and the priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar, on the offerings by fire to the LORD. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

Lev 5:10 'The second he shall then prepare as a burnt offering according to the ordinance. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed, and it will be forgiven him.

Etc., etc., etc.

There are over 60 verses in Leviticus that speaks about atonement. The atonement made by the priest under the Old Covenant may in fact be a type for the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross, nevertheless, the atonement made by the priest was real; it actually brought forgiveness. While the atonement may have been a type, the forgiveness was not a type; the forgiveness was real. The atonement may have only been temporary, and it may have needed to be repeated, but it was real atonement.

So when in Hebrews we read, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4), what does that mean? It cannot mean that the forgiveness was not real. What it means is that forgiveness was not enough. So then, what does it mean to "take away sins"? It means that in salvation, sins must be forgiven and the punishment for sins needed to be carried out. Thus while the atonement by the priest through the sacrifice of bulls and goats may have been temporary and needed to be repeated, it was real and the forgiveness was real; but it did not provide the punishment for the sins that God required. Only the atonement through the blood of Christ could make the forgiveness permanent and be sufficient punishment for the sin.

 

[Jim]

Just tossing this out there.

You are going by the wrong standard.

A truth does not need to appear as one exact sentence in Scripture in order to be taught by Scripture. The Holy Word often conveys truths through the totality of its teaching, by direct statements, repeated themes, examples, and necessary implication.

The question is not whether that exact wording appears verbatim, but whether the doctrine is taught by the whole counsel of God.

By your standard, many accepted doctrines would fail simply because the precise phrase is not written in one verse.

Many biblical truths are taught by the combined witness of the text, not by one verbatim line.

Demanding one exact sentence is not exegesis. It is an artificial rule the Bible itself does not require.

No, I am not going by the wrong standard. The question is, "Did Jesus misspeak when he described being born again as being born of water and Spirit?" I say he did not. In the phrase, "born of water and Spirit" in John 3:5 is what Jesus meant by being born again in John 3:3. Therefore the water in verse 5 cannot be referring to physical birth and must mean something else.

 

[Seabass]

Both the thief and Cornelius prove salvation is without water baptism Even the Ethiopian eunech professed Faith in the Son of God b4 he was baptized Acts 8:35-38

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Now according to Apostolic Testimony, when one confesses and believes in the Son of God, they have been born of God 1 Jn 5:1,5

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

The Eunech was an overcome and born of God b4 a drop of water on him !

You have been deceived friend

1) as been already proven, the thief is not an example of NT salvation having been promised paradise while he and Christ were still alive and under the OT law, thereby he was not accountable to Acts 2:38 as we are today who are under the NT.

2) the eunuch is an example of NT salvation. From Matthew's account of the great commission, disciples are made by teaching and baptizing as it was with the eunuch. This is why the Spirit sent for Philip to teach and baptize the eunuch. No such thing in the NT as an untaught, unbaptized Christian. It is God's plan that men be saved through preaching (1 Cor 1:21) and being baptized (Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38). This is the pattern found in the conversions in the book of Acts and the same pattern in how men today are saved. No miraculous intervention on the part of God acting up on man is necessary to being saved.

3) Cornelius, as the eunuch, was made a disciple just as the eunuch per Matthew's account of the great commission where Peter was sent to teach and baptize the Gentiles. Mark 16:16 he who has already believed and has already been baptized shall be saved, where the aorist tense 'believed' and 'baptized' occur BEFORE saved takes place.


a)
Acts 15:11 Peter says Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same 'like manner' way, there is not 1001 different ways to be saved... just one gospel way. The Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 were made disciples by being taught and commanded to be water baptized per the great commission accounts of Matthew and Mark. Again, no such thing in the NT as an untaught, unbaptized Christian.

b)
Cornelius was lost not having obeyed the gospel of Christ per 2 Thess 1:8;
"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"
--the gospel of Christ is the death burial and resurrection of Christ, 1 Cor 15:3-4
--the only way to obey the gospel of Christ per 2 Thess 1:8 for Cornelius is by being water baptized for in water baptism (Tom 6) there is a death of the old man of sin, a burial from which one is 'rasied up from' (resurrected) to then walk in newness of life.

c)
Acts 2:41:
"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.".
This means those that rejected Peter's gospel words rejected being baptized. The logical conclusion is being water baptized is HOW one receives the word. The gospel word COMMANDS men to be water baptized. So those who have not obeyed this command, they have not received the gospel word. Acts 8:14 those in Samaria received the word of God....by being baptized (v13),

Acts 11:1 "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God."

The word "also" refers back to Acts 2 and the Jews, that is, the Gentiles also as the Jews received the word of God by being water baptized....'also' means both Jew and Gentile received same word of God, saved same way.
Again, the word commands water baptism, how can one who rejects the words command to be water baptized be said to "receive" what he is rejecting?

Acts 2:44
"And all that believed were together,......"

The ones who "believed" in v44 are the same ones who "received" the word v41 who are the same ones who repented and were baptized as the word commanded them v38.

For the Gentiles to NOT be baptized is the same as not believing, not receiving the word.

d)
Acts 10:47
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,...."

Rom 1:16...It was God's plan salvation first go to the Jews (Acts 2:38) then to the Gentiles (Acts 10:47-48). Hence "forbidding water" would be attempting to thwart God's will in salvation going to the Gentiles.

e)
Acts 2:48
"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

--"ALSO" as with the Jews in Acts 2:38...the like manner way Jew and Gentiles are saved Acts 11:15
-- baptism is for the remission of sins.,,,no baptism for Cornelius, no remission of sins
--- the fact water baptism has been command, if for no other reason, makes it essential to salvation for Disobedience to the word is not receiving the word, it is rejecting the word per Acts 2:41. Not obeying is sin, unrighteousness, disobedience...the reason men are lost.

f)
Acts 10:35

"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Cornelius would have to work righteousness to be accepted with God
Psa 119:172 "...for all thy commandments are righteousness."

God commanded water baptism so being water baptized is doing God's righteousness. Not obeying GOd's commands is sin, doing unrighteousness. Rom 6:16 Paul wrote "obedience UNTO righteousness".

So the Jews Acts 2, eunuch Acts 8 and Gentiles Acts 10 were all saved in the same way...by being taught and baptized per Matthew's and Mark's great commission accounts..saved by receiving the word by obeying the command to be water baptized.

 

[Seabass]

@FreeInChrist

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.”

@FreeInChrist, I will be very concise in answering your desire, since this is a method that all of those who handle the word of God should do when expounding the word of God, following the example left to us by the Lord Jesus.

1). Men are so inconsistent in their teaching of the scriptures which is the hallmark of error being present. Notice what @Jim said above:


Yet when they come to John 3:5 they teach that Christ under the OT taught water baptism for the remission of sin!

@Seabass makes the same inconsistent remarks:

Yet these very men will use John 3:5 and teach water baptism is essential to being born again! Again, inconsistency is the hallmark of false teaching! As for:

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.”

2). Very simple and very easy to follow the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, if one lays aside their bias teachings that they have come to accept.

If we start in verse two and follow the flow of the discourse, then is it so clearly written exactly what is being said, so as to leave men without an excuse of being inconsistent in teaching the word of God.

John 3:2~“The 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.”

Stop and ponder carefully the good, holy, righteous confession made by this leader of the Pharisees, of all people. The other Pharisees accused Jesus of being devil possessed, but not this man. Nicodemus' confession is as righteous as any person you and I will ever meet. It was a confession of a man whom God had quickened from the dead to life, even though at this stage of his life, as babe in Christ, (his knowledge of the truth is pitiful, just as any child would be,) regardless of his place among the Jews, as one of their master in religion. Notice very carefully, our Lord's next words to him.....

John 3:3​

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

The double verily should get out attention as to why our Lord used them. I know why, after careful consideration of this discourse over the past fifty plus years, and trust others would learn also and they likewise will see the truth behind our Lord's double verily. The Lord knew that what he was going to say, would be hard for most to agree with. ~ so he used the double verily. Our Lord is saying that by the very fact of Nicodemus' confession proved his quickening of the Spirit of God to life from the dead! Poor Nicodemus/ understanding of this blessed truth of the new birth caused him to ask the question he did.

John 3:4​

“Nicodemus 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?”

How silly to believe this could even be possible, but more than that, how pitiful for a leader in the Jews' religion be so ignorant of how one is born of the Spirit apart from the flesh being involved. But, Nicodemus is not alone he has many just as blinded as he was.

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.”

If Nicodemus had not asked the that the question that he did, then Jesus would have never mentioned water, never. Water is never mention again by Jesus when he explained the new birth. Born of water is to be born of flesh!

John 3:6​

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; (water, the water breaks and a child is born from his mother's womb, this has to be done only once!) and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The new birth is one by the Spirit of God alone, and is evidence by such things as Nicodemus' simple confession! How simple are these scriptures~those who believe in baptismal regeneration have a another gospel and John 3:5 will never give them an ounce of support, not today, not tomorrow, never!

@FreeInChrist I trust that this helps you.

you posted "@Seabass makes the same inconsistent remarks:"

I referred to the Bible and Heb 9:15-17 that have always proven the "thief argument" to be fallacious. It shows how some people can allow a personal theological bias stand in the way of having a basic understanding of the Bible and simple facts

 

[brightfame52]

1) as been already proven, the thief is not an example of NT salvation having been promised paradise while he and Christ were still alive and under the OT law, thereby he was not accountable to Acts 2:38 as we are today who are under the NT.

Yes he is an example of salvation by grace, without no water baptism, and others as well. In fact salvation in purpose has been given the elect and grace before the world began 2 Tim 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works[obedience], but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

In the eternal phase of salvation everyone who shall be saved in time, has already been saved by purpose and grace. They are born saved from that perspective.

 

[Seabass]

Yes he is an example of salvation by grace, without no water baptism, and others as well. In fact salvation in purpose has been given the elect and grace before the world began 2 Tim 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works[obedience], but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

In the eternal phase of salvation everyone who shall be saved in time, has already been saved by purpose and grace. They are born saved from that perspective.

He is not an example of NT salvation that requires water; Mt 28:19-20. Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48; Rom 6:3-4; etc

 

[brightfame52]

3) Cornelius, as the eunuch, was made a disciple just as the eunuch per Matthew's account of the great commission where Peter was sent to teach and baptize the Gentiles. Mark 16:16 he who has already believed and has already been baptized shall be saved, where the aorist tense 'believed' and 'baptized' occur BEFORE saved takes place.

Cornelius was already saved way b4 Peter was sent to him with the Gospel. Peter was sent to convert him to Gospel Truth and direct him in Christian discipleship. God sent Peter to tell a saved man what to do as far as Christian discipleship is and gave him assurance of his salvation Acts 10:1-6

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Not to do to get saved or right with God, he already was right with God, but needed instruction

 

[brightfame52]

He is not an example of NT salvation that requires water; Mt 28:19-20. Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48; Rom 6:3-4; etc

You dont need no water for salvation, just for discipleship and fellowship at that time, and it served as an answer of a good conscience toward God 1 Pet 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:

You promoting salvation by works and ordinances, thats the beast religion sir