John 3:5 does not require (or even speak about) Baptism for Salvation (The Other Denom, Edition)

Good point. Also: 1 Peter 1:23 - having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever. ;)

There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit.. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit.

 

Again, that is not what John 3:5 SPECIFICALLY is talking about. Water birth in John 3:5, based on context, is OBVIOUSLY our birth out of the womb. You know, the water breaks?

 

The reason Jesus refers "the water" (physical birth) is because the Jews (specifically Nicodemus) believed their salvation was wrapped up in being s Jew, a descendant of Abraham, and a follower of the law. The water reference is specifically mentioning a physical birth. Jesus is saying one must be born physically and spiritually.

Now what is puzzling is the intentionally ignoring vs. 6bon this subject because it in fact interprets vs. 5 for us. That which is born of the flesh is flesh.... if one has a physical birth you remain only physical. That which is born of the spirit is spirit....which falls back to you must be born again.

The whole context here is set up when Jesus said we must be born again. Everything after that is in that context. The water birth is in that context. Being born of the flesh is in that context. Being born of the spirit is in that context.

Having a water baptism as a means of administering grace is not even in view here. It doesn't fit the context or Jesus own interpretation of His own words of "water" in vs. 6 "flesh" (physical birth).

 

Yeah, not sure how I could make this anymore clear.

 

The issue isn't your lack of clarity but their lack of what I call "want to". They just don't want to.

 

By the way, it's nice to be on the same side of a theological argument for a change :)

 

It's called amniotic fluid. By stating, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" in verse 6, Jesus was addressing Nicodemus' question in verse 4, yet afterwards, Jesus goes right back to stressing that "you must be born" again in verse 7. In John 3:3, Jesus clearly stated that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." In John 3:5, Jesus said "born of water and the Spirit," That "water" refers either to the "word of God" or "living water" is in harmony with John 3:5 and these passages of scripture from post #38 and #41. :Thumbsup

 

There is no way you get that from the actual c ontext of the passage. That is just as ridiculous of an interpretation as saying it is talking about baptism.

 

Ok be nice now

 

It's not a matter of being nice, it's a matter of both are equally eisigesis. You cannot possibly from the text of John 3:5 get water being the Word of God. It ignores every sound hermeneutic. Just because an interpretation harmonizes with other points of Scripture doesn't make it correct if it ignores the actual context of the text you are dealing with.

 

You are right but you could say it nicer

 

Ah, the modern Evangelical amniotic fluid belief. (A logical end for any anti-Sacramentalist.). This modern attack on baptism fails for several reasons. Here are but a few...

First, if it does refer to natural birth, Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of being born again. Secondly, NOWHERE in Scripture is being born synonymous with being "born of water." Lastly, our Blessed Lord says man must be born "of" water. The Greek word for "of" is ἐk, which means from / of / an origin of something. (Source) Man is not birthed from water, but rather from a mother; that is, a person. Man is not born from water / amniotic fluid. In other words, water is not the origin of man's natural birth and Scripture never refers to it as such. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-11)

Protestants seemingly will stop at nothing to remove the Sacraments from Christianity. However, in Christianity, matter...matters.

 

The sacraments concept is a legalistic format created by the State Controlled Church of Rome. You will be hard pressed to convince a non-Catholic that there are any meritorious sacraments.
Baptist's will acknowledge the Bible describes two ordinances. These are:
1) The Lord's Supper - done in remembrance of Christ's atoning sacrifice for sins.
2) Water Baptism - done in obedience as an outward demonstration of the Spirit's immersion of the believer into Christ Jesus.

Neither are performed as a meritorious act. They are performed as an obedient act according to God's ordinance.

 

No, actually it wouldn't. How do you get to that point?

How is this relevant?

No, we just actually read Scripture and leave tradition out of it.

 

(1) Excellent post! Baptists must now come up with just one example from late antiquity of a reference to physical birth as a birth "from water--or their rejection of the redemptive significance of baptism is decisively refuted!" Actually, if the Baptists had bothered to look at what Jesus says about baptism elsewhere, they would have seen that the Great Commission proves that you are right:

"Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).."

(2) David Taylor's absurd claim that "baptism" in 1 Peter 3:20-21 refers to the Spirit is refuted (1) by Peter's clarifying phrase "not by the removal of dirt from the body" and (2) by the fact that "baptism" never means "the Spirit," unless the term is clarified by the modifier "in the Spirit."

"...eight persons were saved through water (Noah's Flood). And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as a pledge (Greek: "eperotema") to God through a good conscience (1 Peter 3:20-21)."

In his excellent Commentary on 1 Peter, Evangelical scholar, Joel Green explain Peter's teaching here on the redemptive significance of baptism:
"Peter connects the days of Noah and the water that saves with the baptism that saves ("sozo")...In Peter's hands baptism signifies new birth, a genuine turning from old life to new...But this genuine turning,'' far from a once-for-all event, is realized in ongoing commitment. This is the importance of the difficult term in 3:21, "eperotema", which...here refers to the power of baptism to signify a "pledge" or "acceptance of new duties," the goal of which is a good conscience (p. 137)."

Peter reinforces his view of baptismal regeneration in his Pentecost sermon:

"Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ , so that your sins may be forgiven (Acts 2:38)."

Ernst Haenchen's magisterial Commentary on "The Acts of the Apostles" expresses the scholarly consensus on this verse: "The name "Jesus Christ" is pronounced over the [baptismal] candidate. Thereby he comes under the power of Jesus, his sins are in consequences remitted, and `he receives the Holy Spirit (p. 184)'."

(3) Paul expresses his view of baptismal regeneration in Galatians 3:27:
"As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

Paul was first introduced to his doctrine of baptismal regeneration by Ananias:
"Get up and be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on His name (Acts 22:16)."

Haenchen writes: "The accomplishment of the baptism (with invocation of the name of Jesus) and its meaning (washing away of sins) are indicated (p. 627).

 

You mean we have to show that in a human birth the water in the womb breaks and releases to begin contractions?
Is this a new phenomenon in human evolution or has God not always done so when a human is born?

 

Great post! A few points to add...

1. Yes, Taylor et al would need to provide an example from antiquity (including Scripture) which demonstrate that being "born of water" was synonymous with being born. (I hope they don't spend too much time searching though, as it does not exist.)


2. Taylor et al must believe John's Gospel contains the greatest coincidences in history, as after this encounter, the Apostle tells us Jesus and the Apostles baptize and puts the setting in Aenon


3. Green's book is great, and here is something important he notes on the same page you quoted from his work, 1 Peter...

"Peter himself refers to baptism as the antitype of the Flood, which is therefore a significant but incomplete foreshadowing of baptism." (Joel Green, 1 Peter, pg. 137)


This is an important observation because in Christianity, the reality of something always surpasses the type / figure of it. If baptism is merely an empty ritual as the posters here are arguing, then it would be the very first time in all of Scripture where the type / figure of something would have surpassed the reality of it.


4. It is important to understand the genesis of the Baptist anti-Sacramentalism. Zwingli was bold enough to state the Apostles and fathers were actually wrong about baptism, and that his (Zwingli's) understanding was a new and different path from the regula fidei of Christianity...

"In this matter of baptism - if I may be pardoned for saying it - I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the Apostles...At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries." (Zwingli, De Baptismo, 1525 A.D.)


5. Lastly, at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, Christ instructs His Apostles to teach and baptize all nations. He gives the Apostles the the proper form for administering the sacrament, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt 28:19) No one, not even anti-sacramentalist Baptists, use this form for a baptism sans water!

 

Time to put your LIES about St. John Chrysostom to rest.

He believed in the CATHOLIC position on Baptismal Regeneration and the CATHOLIC position on John 3:5 – as well as MANY other Biblical texts.

Here now is a LONG list of writings on the subject . . .

St. John Chrysostom (347-407), bishop of Constantinople, wrote a work titled “Instructions to Catechumens,” in which he writes:

But I see that our discourse now constrains us to something more necessary to say what baptism is, and for what reason it enters into our life, and what good things it conveys to us.

But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. “He saved us,” he says, “through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

It is called also, baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27

Hear therefore what follows: “And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God.” We promise to show you that they who approach the laver become clean from all fornication: but the word has shown more, that they have become not only clean, but both holy and just, for it does not say only “you were washed,” but also “you were sanctified and were justified.”

And for what reason, says one, if the laver take away all our sins, is it called, not a laver of remission of sins, nor a laver of cleansing, but a laver of regeneration? Because it does not simply take away our sins, nor simply cleanse us from our faults, but so as if we were born again.

God has taken and cast anew, and throwing it into the waters as into a mould, and instead of fire sending forth the grace of the Spirit, then brings us forth with much brightness, renewed, and made afresh, to rival the beams of the sun, having crushed the old man, and having fashioned a new man, more brilliant than the former.

In his Homily 24 on the Gospel of John, St. Chrysostom writes:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

. Now what He says, is something like this: “If you are not born again, if you partake not of the Spirit which is by the washing of Regeneration, you can not have a right opinion of Me, for the opinion which you have is not spiritual, but carnal.” (Titus 3:5) (Homily 24 on the Gospel of John)

In Baptismal Instruction (3:6) he writes:
Although many men think that the only gift [baptism] confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

In his Homily 12 on Matthew, St. Chrysostom writes:
For this baptism alone has the grace of the Spirit, but that of John was destitute of this gift. (Homily 12 on Matthew)

In his Homily 19 on Matthew, he writes:
Then forasmuch as it comes to pass that we sin even after the washing of regeneration, He, showing His love to man to be great even in this case, commands us for the remission of our sins to come unto God who loves man, and thus to say, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” (Homily 19 on Matthew)

Commenting on John 1:12, “As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God,” St. Chrysostom writes:
And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the “image of the earthy” (1 Corinthians 15:49), and producing “the image of the heavenly,” fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould. (Homily 10 on the Gospel of John)

Regarding the story of the pool at Bethsada in the fifth chapter of the gospel of John, St. Chrysostom writes:
A Baptism was about to be given, possessing much power, and the greatest of gifts, a Baptism purging all sins, and making men alive instead of dead.
And “an Angel came down and troubled the water,” and endued it with a healing power, that the Jews might learn that much more could the Lord of Angels heal the diseases of the soul. Yet as here it was not simply the nature of the water that healed, (for then this would have always taken place,) but water joined to the operation of the Angel; so in our case, it is not merely the water that works, but when it has received the grace of the Spirit, then it puts away all our sins. (Homily 36 on the Gospel of John)

In his Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles he writes:
But why does Christ say, “You shall be baptized,” when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation. (Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles)

In his Homily 40 on the Acts of the Apostles he writes:
We have the sum and substance of the good things: through baptism we received remission of sins, sanctification, participation of the Spirit, adoption, eternal life. What would ye more? (Homily 40 on the Acts of the Apostles)

YOUR problem is that you LIE and you TWIST and PERVERT the truth to make your points.

As I have stated repeatedly – the UNANIMOUS teachings of the Early Church on John 3:5 were that it was about BAPTISM . . .

 

If the water which Jesus refers to is amniotic fluid, then Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus’ suggestion that he climb back into his mother’s womb for a second birth.

Because nowhere in Scripture or antiquity is being "born of water" synonymous with being born.

You read Scripture in light of your anabaptist tradition, which is rooted in the teaching of Zwingli, who taught the Apostles and fathers of the Church were actually wrong about baptism. Hence he abandoned the regula fidei for his novel and new path, which he boasted he was doing.

 

LOL! I was not in favor of the amniotic fluid belief. Read through posts #41 and #47 again.