[Francisco]

Freelight,

)=============Hello all,.............It looks like myself and some others hold that the 'born of water' in John 3:5 refers to natural birth(being born of the flesh). As I have shared...I feel this is most correct interpretation in the immediate context.

What does 'immediate context' mean to you? Maybe you really mean John 3:5 refers to natural birth if you take that one verse out of it's immediate context and apply your own preconceived notion that it speaks of 'natural birth.'

The immediate context, in fact looking at the context of the entire Gospel of John, John 3:5 can in no way be construed so as to say Jesus was speaking of natural birth. Look at the immediate context. Jesus is shocked that Nicodemus doesn't understand what He's talking about, particularly because Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel. And being a teacher of Israel, Jesus knew Nicodemus should have been familiar with Ezekiel 36 where God says He will sprinkle the people with clean water to remove their sins, and instill a new heart and a new spirit within them. That is what Jesus is talking about when He said 'born of water and Spirit.' Take a look:

25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Nicodemus should have recognized what Jesus was talking about when He said 'born of water and Spirit.'

The larger context also fails to support your claim Jesus was talking about natural birth. What does Jesus do immediately following the Nicodemus discourse? He goes into Judea with the disciples and there they spend time baptizing:

22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

Your claim, when considered in the immediate context, or in the broader context of the Gospel of John, seems nonsensical. You would have us believe Jesus was using an analogy of being born of water to refer to natural birth, then immediate proceed into Judea to baptize the people in water? Your argument falls flat.

Look at how the theme of water throughout the Gospel of John. We see it at the wedding at Canaa where the water becomes wine, at Jacobs well where it serves as a catalyst to His discourse with the Samaritan woman and as an analogy of the indwelling of the Spirit, the healing waters in the pool at Bethseda, Jesus walking on the water, the blind man cured when he washed in the waters of the pool at Siloam, and the washing of the apostles feet. In all these cases Jesus reveals Himself to those around Him through the use of water. The argument that John 3:5 is talking about water baptism fits with these other examples perfectly. The idea that Jesus is talking about natural birth dosn't fit at all.

God Bless,

Francisco

[c.moore]

Hello Kevin
thank you for your response to my questions.

I don`t see it like you do about the scriptures , but I am not trying to put you on the spot , I just want to look at both sides of the fence.
I must say your understanding is very interesting and in the flesh it makes sense but in the the spirit it looks like you missed the mark.
I will give you my understanding , and maybe we can compare were we miss each other.
BTW do you have an msn messenger on your computer with netmeeting???

So now here I go from my side of the fence praise God.

Sure, but can you show me an any of those verses were it repeats it'self unecessarily and makes no sense?

I am glad you were truthful and admitted that the bible is known as the "Water" praise God.
yes I can show you and I`ll use your favorite verse from your water baptismo doctrine which you stand on so strong , and let`s take a look at it.

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

look at believeth, and of course the opposite of believing is not believing automatically , and even the bible say`s who is not for me is against me, and John §:16 say who belöieve shall have eternal life but even in John 3:16 don`t say who believeth not has no eternal life, untill you read futher down in verse 18.

According to your exegesis, if Christ has ALREADY delcared that the person is cleansed by the washing of the word, why would He continue with "by the Word"? We ALREADY would know that by Him declaring that we are cleansed by the washing of the word! Your rendering makes no sense.

We continue are not washed just once and for all by the washing of the Word it is a process and a dairly growth and renewal of the mind with the Word of God which is our spritual water according to Ro:12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Ro:12:3: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

So how do we get this measure of faith Ro:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

so the reson I think you see this not making no sense is because you don`t know this is a continueing cleaning process in the word of God, not a one time act like a water baptism ritual or circumcission.

If that verse didn't end with "by the word", then you might have an argument to stand on. But "the word" is already spoken of seperately in that verse from the washing of WATER. As bad as you want water in the context of this verse to mean "word", it just doesn't, due to the fact that it is revealed at the end of the verse that the washing of WATER comes by THE WORD. There are two seperate things being addressed in this verse as opposed to ONE thing being addressed in the water, milk, and bread verses.

Do you say the same with Mark 16:16, and say believing is already spoken of seperately in that verse from baptism???

Ephesians 5:26 mentions water and the word, two serperate things in the same verse, and you want them to say the same thing, even though two are mentioned. Your context of that verse just doesn't make sense. Just look at it again:

If this analogy you claimed above is correct them the same must be for your doctrine scripture in Mark 16:16 believeth and baptism is two different thing so you don´t make sense either, so there is confussion here do you think so?

We are cleansed by the WASHING of WATER by the WORD.

This doesn`t fit at all because reading this that way makes it look like you have drained water from the bible and you are now using the water h20 fron the Words that turned into water to be cleans unless you think the bible is a magic show fron David carperfield.

God Bless

[Kevin]

c.moore,

I don`t see it like you do about the scriptures

Indeed... the history of this thread will attest to that.

but I am not trying to put you on the spot , I just want to look at both sides of the fence.

By all means, C.Moore, put me on the spot.

I must say your understanding is very interesting and in the flesh it makes sense but in the the spirit it looks like you missed the mark.

I'm not so sure you understand what it means when compring the flesh to the Spirit. I can assure you I am born of the Spirit, not of the flesh, or I would be of the world and practice worldly things (which I don't). Baptism serves an extremely important spiritual purose. It's the means chosen by God that allows us to have remission of our sins and walk in the newness of life. Only a spiritually minded person who is seeking God will undergo baptism.

Just because baptism happens to be done with water, you somehow equate that with being of the flesh, just because water is a phyical substance. Would you say the born again Christians in the New Testament were of the flesh because they were baptized with water? I would hope not.

I will give you my understanding , and maybe we can compare were we miss each other.

Sounds good.

BTW do you have an msn messenger on your computer with netmeeting???

Heh, no I don't. You'd think I would though, considering my profession (Information Technology) and love for computers. It's amazing how many ways we humans can come up with to communicate with one another.

By the way, just as a side comment, while at work, I noticed that somebody has actually make a sticker that says "Beelzebub", and put it onto their monitor. What is this world coming to?!

Anyway.... back to the discsussion at hand.

I am glad you were truthful and admitted that the bible is known as the "Water" praise God.

First of all, I don't lie and have no reason to, so of course what I tell you will be honest. Lying doesn't do anybody anygood. People might fool man... but not God.

Secondly, you must also admit that that everytime the Bible uses water, it does not refer to the word of God.

yes I can show you and I`ll use your favorite verse from your water baptismo doctrine which you stand on so strong , and let`s take a look at it.

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

look at believeth, and of course the opposite of believing is not believing automatically , and even the bible say`s who is not for me is against me, and John §:16 say who belöieve shall have eternal life but even in John 3:16 don`t say who believeth not has no eternal life, untill you read futher down in verse 18.

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't see what your are trying to prove with Mark 16:16. That verse is quite clear, and doesn't have the abnoralities that I'm speaking of. It doesn't say anything like "those who believe by belief and are baptized by baptism will be saved by salvation, and those who don't believe by belief will be condemned by condemnation", which is the case with your rendering of Eph. 5:26 (washing of word by the word). The verse is a clear statement of the requirements of salvation and also address that those who don't believe will be damned.

Now, if I were to come accross "that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,", I would wonder why the author was thinking. The author would be telling us that we cleansed with the washing of the word. Right there, just from and statment, I would know that I was cleansed by washing of the word. But the author goes on to say "BY the word.", which clearly indicates that whatever we are cleansed by (which is WATER) is done BY THE WORD.

So, it makes zero sense, seriously, to render that verse washing of word by the word. What, did Paul need to remind us the second after telling us that we are cleansed with the washing of word..... that is was BY the word?! Makes zero sense. Zero.

Let's take another look at the word washing in the Greek:

G3067
λουτρόν
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism: - washing.

It's quite clear that is word is to indicate a bath or washing. When you take a bath, what do you wash with... water (which is what the verse says in Greek or in context) or the word? The fact is, if Paul meant "water" to mean "word", he would not have followed it up with "by the word", which inidcates a difference to what was previously spoken - WATER.

We continue are not washed just once and for all by the washing of the Word it is a process and a dairly growth and renewal of the mind with the Word of God which is our spritual water according to Ro:12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Yeah... and this has what do to with my argument? By context alone, your arguement in Eph 5:26 doesn't make any sense.

If I told you "Hey c.moore, I think you need to wash your hands by your hands.", would you look at me just a little funny? I would hope so, and that's exactly what you're trying to to with Eph. 5:26. You just can't realize that TWO things are spoken of there, not one.

So how do we get this measure of faith Ro:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Yes, I know this. How does this relate to my argument? That verse makes perfect sense. Notice it doesn't say "So then faith cometh by hearing by hearing, and hearing by hearing by the word of God by the word of God?

so the reson I think you see this not making no sense is because you don`t know this is a continueing cleaning process in the word of God, not a one time act like a water baptism ritual or circumcission.

No, it makes no sense because you are trying to take two things that Paul spoke of and make them one. The fact of the matter is that Paul is speaking of two things in that verse:

• WHAT we are washed by - water
• HOW this happens - by the word of God (hearing or reading)

When the Jews were washed with WATER in Acts 2:38, by what means did this happen? BY THE WORD OF GOD. Simple.

Do you say the same with Mark 16:16, and say believing is already spoken of seperately in that verse from baptism???

??? Believing and baptism are two different things... which is why Christ stated both in the requirements for salvation. He then goes on, speaking on condemnation. You are misunderstanding what my point is if you think the very clear verse compares to your erroneous rendering of Eph. 5:26. I've already commented above on how Mark 16:16 would look accrording to your method of rendering... take a look again and tell me if it makes sense.

If this analogy you claimed above is correct them the same must be for your doctrine scripture in Mark 16:16 believeth and baptism is two different thing so you don´t make sense either, so there is confussion here do you think so?

Again, see above. Eh... I'll show you again:

"those who believe by belief and are baptized by baptism will be saved by salvation, and those who don't believe by belief will be condemned by condemnation". That's what you are trying to do with Eph. 5:26 (washing of word by the word). Makes no sense. Mark 16:16 is broken down into two different things (salvation and condemnation), and nothing in that verse is butchered the way you rendered Eph. 5:26.

Do you dry yourself off with a towl, by a towel? See what I mean?

This doesn`t fit at all because reading this that way makes it look like you have drained water from the bible and you are now using the water h20 fron the Words that turned into water to be cleans unless you think the bible is a magic show fron David carperfield.

Well of course it doesn't fit they way you're looking at it. It's certainly not saying that water comes out of the Bible (that they didn't even have then). Look at verses 25 and 26:

Eph 5:25-26
25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it,
26) that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,

When it says "that He might sanctify and cleanse it", what do you think "it" is referring to??? His church (see above).

Who is His chruch? WE ARE.

How are we cleansed? By being WATER baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

How did all this take place? BY the WORD OF GOD.

The church (us) is cleansed by the washing of WATER (Acts 2:38), BY the word of God, which is what Peter spoke to them.

[c.moore]

Hello Kevin

What does the (by) mean in Ephesisans in Greek???

can we say by is with , like I can say I wash my mind with the bible spiritually like I do wash my hand with water??

maybe the error is in what BY means

God Bless

[Francisco]

freelight,

To continue from my last post:

Originally posted by freelight:

Commenting on kevins last sentence above - this verse in Mark 16:16 - "he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' is a later addition as the earliest manuscript of Mark ch. 16 ends at vs. 8. At a later time,.......2 conclusions to this last chapter appeared - most Bibles have the long conclusion.....but there was a 'short' conclusion as well. I only draw this up to show some 'caution' as to this actually being a correct record of what Jesus said. In any case the emphasis is 'belief'(faith) as the essential of salvation.

It is true most scholars agree the verses after Mark 8 were added to the Gospel of Mark after the original version was completed. However, this should not reduce the importance of what the additional verses say. After all, these verses have been accepted as canonical since the original canon of the bible was approved. Also, due to the quotations of these verses by the early church fathers, we know these verses were appended at a very early date, probably during the lifetime of Mark. Some scholars believe disciples of Mark added these verses to clarify and bolster Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Following the thought that later additions and interpolations may have entered into the gospel accounts....we see Matt. 28 - the last chapter vs. 19. This is the notable verse about 'going into all nations baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. - this is thought by some to be an interpolation added to validate the doctrine of the Trinity - also note the inferrence of 'baptism'.

This verse is in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts and has also been accepted as canonical and quoted in Christian literature since the late first century. While there is little doubt this verse constitutes the clearest validation of Trinitarian doctrine in scripture, only non-trinitarian apologists have ever claimed this verse was added. If you have any opinion from a credible scholar to the contrary, please share that with us.

Originally posted by freelight:

In the gospels of Luke and John.....there is no direct command by Jesus to baptize or be baptized - In the gospel of John.....it does mention that Jesus and his disciples baptized along with John (John 3:22,23)....however later the report of Jesus himself baptizing is denied in 4:2.

And in the Gospel of John there is no direct command to repent, but we all know that is necessary, and so did the audience John wrote his Gospel to. Many teachings are assumed by the authors of the scriptures to be clearly understood by their audiences and so are not re-hashed by the author. The writings served as reinforcement of the primary method of proclaiming the Gospel orally.

Your inference that Jesus didn't baptize, just the disciple did, falls flat. Jesus was clearly with the disciples in Judea and so must have endorsed their baptism ministry. And as I said in my earlier post, the mention of this baptism ministry in Judea comes immediately after the Nicodemus discourse to clarify exactly what Jesus meant when He said born of water and Spirit.

Originally posted by freelight:

The great emphasis by some on Acts 2:38 as a proof text of baptism and its power to remit sins is also subject to review. One is baptized 'because of' the remission sins(this done by the faith-response of those who hear and embrace the gospel and are spiritually renewed and transformed)......- the physical act of baptism in water does not wash away sins...but is an act of obedience - of course.
It is the spiritual-mental act of repentance and faith in Christ (spiritual generation) that remits sin and enables one to walk in newness of Life - its the answer of a good conscience correlating to the resurrection of Jesus that grants new life to the believer.

If Acts 2:38 was the only place that scripture mentioned baptism for the forgiveness of sin you might have an argument. But Romans 6 mentions the same concept, that through baptism sin is put to death. Collosians 2 speaks to the same concept, and so does 1 Peter 3:21.

An even more concrete witness to early Christian belief in baptism for the forgiveness of sins can be found in nearly all the writings of the early Christians, beginning while most of the apostles were still alive, and written in some cases by close friends and disciples of the apostles. First, look at what Barnabas says in 74 A.D.:

"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).


Hermas, Paul's friend and co-worker who is mentioned in Romans 16:14 wrote:


"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 78]).


Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who studied directly under the apostle John. John taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. That seems to be a very short 'chain of custody' of the Christian teachings of the apostles. This is what Irenaeus wrote:


"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 170]).


There is no doubt the early church, within the lives of the apostles and their immediate students, believed in the forgiveness of sins through baptism.

There is also no doubt the belief is scriptural and causes it's detractors to 'explain away' many scriptures like the ones you have attempted to discredit above. I understand you do this to support your preconceived notions about baptism, but why would you rather make scripture fit your idea rather than find the truth of what scripture teaches us?

God Bless,

Francisco

[Francisco]

freelight,

my first comment regards Mark 16:8, not Mark 8.

God Bless,

Francisco

[Kevin]

c.moore,

What does the (by) mean in Ephesisans in Greek???

What does "by" mean in the Greek? You asked for it...

G1722
å̓í
en
en
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.

Pretty amazing for such a simple little word, eh?

can we say by is with , like I can say I wash my mind with the bible spiritually like I do wash my hand with water??

maybe the error is in what BY means

I've already tried to show you how we are cleansed through the washing of water by the word. Look again:

Eph 5:25-26
25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it,
26) that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,

When it says "that He might sanctify and cleanse it", what do you think "it" is referring to??? His church (see above).

Who is His chruch? WE ARE.

How are we cleansed? By being WATER baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

How did all this take place? BY the WORD OF GOD.

The church (us) is cleansed by the washing of WATER (Acts 2:38), BY the word of God, which is what Peter spoke to them.

In other words, if had Peter not spoken to the Jews about the word of God, they would have never been cleansed through the washing of water, for it was BY the word of God that they were commanded to undergo this cleansing through water.

[c.moore]

In other words, if had Peter not spoken to the Jews about the word of God, they would have never been cleansed through the washing of water, for it was BY the word of God that they were commanded to undergo this cleansing through water.

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Oh really? Was Peter preaching something OTHER than the word of God when he spoke to the Jews?

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,



Oh really? Was Peter preaching something OTHER than the word of God when he spoke to the Jews?

Yes peter was speaking the Word of God which is the sword, and that`s why people believed because of the living Wordnot water baptism.

Don`t you know that the Word of God is water that cleans our mind daily and we need the word in us to clean all the years of sinful ´thinking, so this is why the water is the Word of God.
The Word of God is God talking to us,a dnthe Word of God is many things to us as well as water like God is to us.
God is also the great I AM, meaning our healer,provider,helper,protector, and what ever our need is HE IS.
So the bible is our instructions book, healing book,cleaning book, food,power for our lives, and it help quicken our spirit with the Holy Spirit.
We are also washed by the blood of Jesus but do you see that as a pool of blood that we must baptize and dive into or do we just need a drop of Jesus blood?

Do you think everytime water is mention in the bible it has to be baptism with getting wet??

now let me get back to Ephesians 5, and I just look or the reference verse , and I have this.
Ti: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;

So, the question here is do you think the washing means baptism
and regeration means baptism to generation to generations??

God Bless

[frostmanj]

C.Moore mentioned the Word of God, and it jogged my memory. Lutheran's such as I have been accused of claiming the water is the active ingrediant in the sacrement of Baptism, and that this is a clear "works" based faith, and as such unsound.

I decided to look up what Martin Luther said on the subject (From his Small Catechism)

"How can water do such great things?

Answer: It is NOT the water indeed that does them, but the WORD OF GOD which is in and with the water, and FAITH which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water, and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism , that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter third: By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying."

Bottom Line: Any Lutheran who tells you that the sacrement of Baptism has any meaning outside of Faith and the word of God, does not know his own theology.

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Yes peter was speaking the Word of God which is the sword, and that`s why people believed because of the living Wordnot water baptism.

First, I never even hinted that the Jews believed baptism over the word (which doesn't even make sense), so please stop throwing out strawman arguements.

Secondly, I'm glad to see that you admit it was the Word of God that Peter was preaching to them. Now, considering the fact that Peter commanded baptism, would you not say that it is part of the word, considering that Christ commanded it in Matt. 28:19-20?

Would you then disagree that it was BY the hearing of the word of God that those people were water baptized? If not, why would Peter command something that was part of the word of God?

Don`t you know that the Word of God is water that cleans our mind daily and we need the word in us to clean all the years of sinful ´thinking, so this is why the water is the Word of God.

I'm well aware of what the word of God's purpose is for. And are you trying to imply that everytime that "water" is mentioned in the New Testament that it is referring to the word of God? I hope not. It's like you are trying to take the passage where Christ speaks of being the living water and apply that to every single place in the New Testament that water is mentioned, which is totally incorrect.

So the bible is our instructions book, healing book,cleaning book, food,power for our lives, and it help quicken our spirit with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and the Bible is the same book that shows Christ commanding water baptism (Matt. 28:19-20).

What good is the Bible if you don't obey the word. Do not be hearers only, but doers, lest you deceive yourself (James 1:22). That includes obeying the Lord's command of baptism for the remission of sins.

We are also washed by the blood of Jesus but do you see that as a pool of blood that we must baptize and dive into or do we just need a drop of Jesus blood?

The blood of Christ was shed for ALL mankind. So if you stop right there, then EVERYBODY has their sins forgiven without doing anything. But we both know that's not the case. Now, what was command for the remission of sins? It is baptism (Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1-11). There's nothing magical about the water. Baptism is the act of obedience that comes from faith in Him that allows us to have our sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. What did Peter tell the Jews to do to have their sins fogiven? Baptism.

Do you think everytime water is mention in the bible it has to be baptism with getting wet??

Nope. That's the beauty of context.

now let me get back to Ephesians 5, and I just look or the reference verse , and I have this.
Ti: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;

I believe that Titus 3:5 speaking of baptismal regeneration. You just keep burying yourself in a hole. Observe:

Tit 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Let's look at the greek for "washing" and "regeneration" to see what is being spoken of here:

First "washing":
G3067
λουτρόν
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism: - washing.

This is referring to a bath and/or washing, and yes, baptism. A perfect example is when the Bible speaks of Paul being told to arise and be baptized WASHING away your sins... (Acts 22:16).

Now "regeneration":
G3824
παλιγγενεσία
paliggenesia
pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.

Spiritual rebirth.

So God saved us through the washing (bath,baptism) of regeneration (sprirtual rebirth), and by the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Sound familar? It should:

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water (which is what we WASH with) and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 6:4
4) Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. (regeneration - reborn - walking in the NEWNESS of life)

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

All of these speak of people having their sins forgiven by baptismal regeneration.

So in answer to your question:

So, the question here is do you think the washing means baptism
and regeration means baptism to generation to generations??

The Greek is quite clear about the meaning of "washing" and "regeneration", and we see this (baptismal regeneration) practiced time and time again in the New Testament in the conversion of sinners. Not ONE time do we see record of the gopel preached and then telling the sinners to say some kind of sinner's prayer for salvation. That's a man-made pervsion that has NO scriptual support whatsoever.

[Freak]

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus

[Shaun]

Sidestepping into conversation:

It is interesting to note, however, that in the earliest churches, only those who had been baptized could attend communion. Sometimes, those who had not been baptized could attend the readings, sermons and prayers, but were ushered away during communion--which was the highest act of worship at the time.

However, believers were still considered believers of Christ prior to baptism. Many believers were baptized almost synonymously with conversion, as described in Acts. However, as the church became increasingly Gentile throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the process of instruction, trial and preparation called "catechumenate" came into effect. Baptisms were usually given only on Easter Sunday, and the people to be baptized usually fasted on Friday and Saturday before. They were then baptized early Sunday morning, naked and gender-segregated, and by full immersion. After being immersed in the waters, they were given white robes and water to drink, signifying their new life and cleansing. They were then anointed, emphasizing the fact that all brought into the body of the church by baptism were part of the royal priesthood (unlike what some Catholic churches claim), and given milk and honey to sybolize the new Promised Land. They then proceeded to take communion for the first time.

[Kevin]

Freak,

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus

What do those verses have to do with baptism? What, do you think the baptism that Christ commanded after His death (Matt. 28:19-20) is part of the Mosaic Law????

I agree with those verses, we are justified by our faith in Christ. So? But what I want to know is can a person be justified by a faith that doesn't include obedience to Christ's commandments in light of 1 John 2: 3-4?

1 John 2:3-4 (NKJ)
3) Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4) He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.