John 3:3-5 – Born Again

In this episode of Bible Q-n-A we’ll be discussing a viewers questions from John 3:3-5 and the new birth. As always, your questions, comments and feedback are welcome.

Comments

  1. Are their ever an instent that a Christian needs Baptised again ?

    • PreacherNorm says:

      Acts 19:1f is an example of people who found out their original baptism was not scriptural and so they were scripturally baptized. When a person has questions about whether or not they were baptized scripturally, I think they should be baptized again to eleviate any such questions. I have known many who were baptized again because they questioned whether they were baptized for the right reasons or that they were actually baptized according to the truth of God’s word. The salvation of our immortal soul is too important to be uncertain about our spiritual condition.

  2. John Smith says:

    Another excellent video. Seems to be a very sensible explanation of the difference between the baptisms before and after the Acts 2 time period.

    Some questions though:

    You mentioned the “sin sacrifices” in Leviticus as having efficacy for removing sins. But how would Heb 10:4 factor into this? Was the Old Testament sin removal ACTUAL at that time or was it ANTICIPATORY (looking forward to the future in Christ)?

    What are the “baptisms” (plural) a reference to in Heb 6:2? How does this square with Eph 4:4 which states that there is “one baptism”?

    At the end of the video you give the five step plan of salvation which I’ve heard you give before (which is, of course, standard in the churches of Christ). But I have a question about the “hearing” and “confessing with the mouth” parts?

    What if one is bringing the gospel to a person who’s deaf and mute from birth?

    You might be able to communicate the info to said person in other ways (through written materials or sign language, etc), but this individual could not LITERALLY “hear” the gospel or confess with “the mouth”.

    I know it seems like common sense would dictate there’s an “exception” here and such as person could still receive the gospel in such an “alternate” fashion.

    But the reason I wonder is because I have heard other church of Christ preachers state that there are NO exceptions for the baptism part (in response to questions like, “What if a truly believing, repentant person dies before they can get to the water?”, etc.). If there are exceptions for the “hearing” and “mouth” parts (and I am assuming there are), why could not there be for baptism in certain rare and/or unusual situations?

    The commands to “hear” and “confess with the mouth” are no less imperative than the one to be baptized, are they?

    I am not talking about someone who was being lazy, negligent, etc. I mean someone who’s heard the true gospel for the very first time (like, perhaps a very young person–maybe one who’d just reached the “age of accountability”).

    If they somehow were unable to get to a sufficient amount of water to completely immerse them and they died, wouldn’t you then have the situation of a truly believing, repentant person in hell? That would seem contrary to Scripture (Psalm 51:17).

    And as far as the water itself goes, does it matter what kind so long as there’s enough for a total immersion?

    What about a situation where the only water available was, for example, severely polluted or of a dangerously high temperature?

    What if the person was in a area with sub-zero weather? Could they be immersed in, for example, ice crystals or snow (the New Testament specifies water–ice and snow are still H20–does it matter if it’s not liquid?)?

    Again, I am not trying to be a smart-aleck or anything, but these exceptions pop into my mind and I really want to know the answers.

    Thanks once more for your time and assistance. I watched the “Catholicism and Bible Authority, Part 3” video and I appreciate your addressing some of my questions. I am looking forward to hearing more responses to some of my other questions in this same vein (e.g. the nature of “Scripture Alone” in the post-apostolic period–the role and nature of the canon of Scripture itself–including the seemingly widespread acceptance of the LONGER canon of the Old Testament–during these earliest centuries, etc.).

    Hope you have a nice day!

    • I don’t think its proper to say that an exception cannot be made, But if exceptions are made it only proves the rule. Take for example what Augustine said concerning exceptions in baptism:

      “Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ–it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, `If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,(quoting John 3:5)’ MADE AN EXCEPTION for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, `Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ (Mathew 10:32)” -Augustine, The City of God 13:7

      Of course there could be exceptions to the rule. But that doesn’t change the fact that the rule still exists.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: