John 3:5... YES! ANOTHER BAPTISM THREAD!

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The gospel is what Jesus commissioned, but this never seems to be observed in debates over baptism.

Amen

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

WATER BAPTISM:

Two places in the Bible that I do not feel support baptismal regeneration (water baptism necessary for salvation) are as follows.

1 Pet 3:18-22 (NIV)

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
21 and this water """symbolizes""" baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body [by water] but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. “””It saves you by the resurrection””” of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

In verse 20 note the word is THROUGH water. Not a drop of water was put on Noah and his family because they were in the Ark..

Verse 21 in the NKJV reads:

21 There is also an “””antitype””” which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

At the end of verse 20, we read that, eight souls, were saved ""through" water. It is not that they were saved "by" water; they were saved "through" the water. Water was not the savior, but the judgment through which God brought them. If the people in the Ark, left the Ark, they would have drowned in the water. Therefore it is obvious that the water was not salvation.

To properly understand this statement in verse 20 and the verse that follows, we must see the typical meaning of the Ark and the flood. The Ark is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The flood of water depicts the judgment of God. The Ark was the only way of salvation. When the flood came, only those who were inside were saved; all those on the outside perished. So Christ is the only way of salvation; those who are "in Christ" (Romans 8:1-2, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, 2 Cor. 5:17) are as saved as God Himself can make them. Those on the outside could not be more lost.

The water was not the means of salvation, for all who were in the water drowned. The Ark was the place of refuge and the only means of salvation. The Ark went ""through"" the water of judgment; it took the full brunt of the storm. Not a drop of water reached those inside the Ark. So Christ bore the fury of God's judgment against our sins. For those who are "in Him" there is no judgment (John 5:24).

Actually, there is a baptism which saves us --- not our baptism in water, but a baptism which took place at Calvary almost 2000 years ago; Christ's death was a baptism (see Mark 10:38). He

was baptized in the waters of judgment. This is what He meant when He said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished" (Luke 12:50). The psalmist described this baptism in the words, "Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; all Your waves and billows have gone over me" (Psalms 42:7). In His death, Christ was baptized in the waves and billows of God's wrath, and it is this baptism that is the basis for our salvation; Christ's baptism unto death on the cross. Today the Holy Spirit baptizes us into His baptism on the cross. It is the Holy Spirit that does this, not man. That is what it means to be buried with Him. Our water baptism "represents" our identification with Him only. It does not save us.

Many people use John 3:1-6 to support water baptism. -- But what do these scriptures really say?

**** Scripture
John 3:1-6 .. (NIV)
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
**** end scripture

It seems to me that in verses 3 and 4 there are only two births being discussed, a man's first birth in the flesh and a necessary second birth of the Spirit. -- Notice that in verse 5 he used the words "born of water" and then "the spirit" and in verse 6, "WHICH AMPLIFIES VERSE 5," He uses the words "birth to flesh" and then "birth to spirit." Nicodemus has brought up the subject of being born in the flesh for a second time. What has been said is that physical birth is not enough. Some will disagree but I believe he is talking about our physical birth "birth to flesh" in verse 5 and that there is another birth, "birth to spirit" which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (NOT MAN)

Since the word baptism was not included in the text, to add it is to change the meaning of the word of God to fit into the theologies of men.

It has been said by another: I think it would be trivial to tell Nicodemus that he had to be born of the water if this meant physical birth. After all, he had already gone through this birth. Why bother to tell him then? -- Why, because it was Nicodemus that brought up the idea of going back into the womb and being born again.

Context is everything. Nowhere in the conversation has water baptism been mentioned. In John 3, verse 6 we see the words "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. " There is absolutely no mention of water baptism. Only two things are under discussion, being born of the flesh and being born of the Spirit.

Very good! God bless

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Water baptism is just another perpetuation of Roman Catholic STRANGLEHOLD on Christianity no different than Sunday sacredness.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn Just now ·
Water baptism is just another perpetuation of Roman Catholic STRANGLEHOLD on Christianity no different than Sunday sacredness.

 

[bbyrd009]

that too i guess, yeh. It gets amde into an idol, huh

anybody notice how if the consonants are in the right place, the vowels can be whatever and you may not even notice?
"If you cn rd ths?"
anybody um see how them last three words relate to Hebrew? As we understand it i mean?
The Hebrews invented vowels, right

It’s amazing how self centered Christians can be.

funny how i can hear you fine, but he cant hear you at all there, huh? With abs no offense meant to um whomever that is, it's just a human nature thing i guess? Swear to God, i hafta say "oh, what you just told me" like fifty times a day lol

The gospel is what Jesus commissioned, but this never seems to be observed in debates over baptism.

the part i love there is that no one can even define that lol; gospel
bc it's the AT i guess?

of course we have a perfect def, Word, that imo actually is a...contains a clue, to what the ancients were trying to convey there. And the theme--like every other Scriptural theme--is repeated over and over, there's only about um 12 subjects in the whole Bible i bet...

 

[bbyrd009]

nothing in the whole Bible box about to baptise for anyone except the apostles addressed in there

hmm, what about John the "Baptist?"

nothing in there than "baptise in with by through the NAME"

name is a word, right? Meaning a name is a word, too, but the two "words" are...have something in common, yeh?

 

[bbyrd009]

Two places in the Bible that I do not feel support baptismal reg

yet you got ritually bapped, right, and here you are, every day, just like me huh HR. Hope you saw the recent tags as points where i agreed with your um primary premise here onsite, let's say. Your "drum." Your word, i guess, huh. I have one too, prolly, dunno. I'm curious if you could state how they, the tags, might have bothered you? Did you find them annoying at all? Bc of course we do not have to do any works to be um "saved" at all, never disagreed with you there k HR? Disagree on the def of Saved, surely, but that is another thread

19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison

"prison," ha, another ambiguous word huh, wonder where those spirits were? Imo go ask 40 believers, and take the consensus, and toss it right out. Literly write it down on a piece of paper, that word that defines...hmm, might be giving too much away there, God forbid the Truth should be baldly etcetc, but anyway and throw it in the trash, imo. If it was right, the best pov, it will recycle anyway :)
imo

 

[bbyrd009]

aight yall have a nice day ok

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

No, that isn't the case. Sometimes the Bible uses symbolism and sometimes it doesn't. I have said SEVERAL times sometimes the Bible is talking about literal water baptism. That means they literally got dipped in water.
Now if you really believe that, then the parables Jesus gave are nothing more than lessons in farming or whatever they are using.

I do not agree. Those that have an anti-water baptism bias do not want John 3:5 to be about water baptism so they want to get rid of literal water out of the verse. They have no problem with Spirit being literal Spirit but have a problem with water being literal water and this lacks consistency. Yet there is nothing in the context that water means anything other than water as nothing in the context shows Spirit means anything other than Spirit.

I have already discussed this. Later in chapter 3 there is a literal water baptism being carried out by both John and Jesus (though he didn't baptize himself). Even though it occurs in the same chapter, it happened at least a day and probably 2-3 days after Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus. The events are not connected.

I have given my reasons why I believe in John 3:5 he is not talking about literal water. First and foremost, Jesus told Nicodemus he was talking about spiritual things. Second, he never mentions baptism. Third, he uses similar language in chapter 4 when he was talking to the Samaritan woman.

For what reason would the "water" in John 3:22-23 not be connected to "water" John 3:5?

Other verses do point out that water of John 3:5 does in fact refer to literal water:

Jn 3:5--------------------Spirit++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1 Cor 12:13-------------Spirit++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Titus 3:5--------------Holy Ghost++++++++laver of water>>>>>>>>>>>>cleansed

If John 3:5 is not about water baptism, then whose fault was it Nocodemus had not been born again? The Pharisees as Nicodemus rejected John's baptism (Luke 7:30 cf John 3:22-23) it then would be Nicodemus own culpability for not being born again.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I still want to SEE where Jesus commissioned <<WATER-baptism>>; He did not.

Matthew 28:19-20 in His great commission. Jesus commissioned disciples (humans) to administer water baptism as the Phillip did with the eunuch. Humans cannot administer baptism with the Holy Spirit only Christ could do that. Secondly, this human administered water baptism was commanded. One can obey the command to be water baptized but baptism with the Holy Spirit could not be something a man could obey.


John 3:5--------------born again>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enter the kingdom
Matthew 7:21-------doeth the will of the Father>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enter the kingdom

Since there is just one way to be saved/enter the kingdom. With there being no alternatives then there is a definite connection between being born again and doing the will of God. God has commanded water baptism (Matthews 28:19-20 cf Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48) and those who obediently submit to baptism (doing God's will) are the one's who are born again.

 

[FHII]

I do not agree. Those that have an anti-water baptism bias do not want John 3:5 to be about water baptism so they want to get rid of literal water out of the verse. They have no problem with Spirit being literal Spirit but have a problem with water being literal water and this lacks consistency.

First off, I have stated several times that I am not anti-water baptism. Second, do you even believe that God used symbolism, metaphors and similes in the Bible? If so, then is argument you are putting forth isn't consistent.

Literal or physical things are used all the time in the Bible to show or mean a spiritual concept. I cannot think of one time a spiritual thing was ever used as a symbol for a physical thing. Can you?

Yet there is nothing in the context that water means anything other than water as nothing in the context shows Spirit means anything other than Spirit.

Please read the OP. I gave two points that show otherwise.

For what reason would the "water" in John 3:22-23 not be connected to "water" John 3:5?

Once again because they are different events. Jesus and Nicodemus finished their conversation. These events didn't even happen on the same day or the same town.

Other verses do point out that water of John 3:5 does in fact refer to literal water:

Jn 3:5--------------------Spirit++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1 Cor 12:13-------------Spirit++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Titus 3:5--------------Holy Ghost++++++++laver of water>>>>>>>>>>>>cleansed

I am afraid I have no idea what your charts are trying to say.

 

[Waiting on him]

First off, I have stated several times that I am not anti-water baptism. Second, do you even believe that God used symbolism, metaphors and similes in the Bible? If so, then is argument you are putting forth isn't consistent.

Literal or physical things are used all the time in the Bible to show or mean a spiritual concept. I cannot think of one time a spiritual thing was ever used as a symbol for a physical thing. Can you?


Please read the OP. I gave two points that show otherwise.


Once again because they are different events. Jesus and Nicodemus finished their conversation. These events didn't even happen on the same day or the same town.


I am afraid I have no idea what your charts are trying to say.

Something Hidden
St. Augustine famously highlighted, “In the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed.” Each is incomplete without the other. But the message of salvation isn’t necessarily clear at first skim through the Old Testament. As Hosea 12:10 says: “I have spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.”

A similitude is a figure of speech that describes something by likening it to another. Before we dig into the feasts themselves, it is important to understand the various ways that the Bible communicates. A great many prophetic ideas are not directly explained; they are developed in a deeper way through repeated actions and visual pictures and culture. We find many examples of similitudes in the Bible in the forms of similes, metaphors, allegories, parables, and prophetic types.

Similes are a familiar form of expression used to compare one thing with another. Rather than merely calling Jack’s feet “cold,” we might elaborate and say, “Jack’s feet felt like blocks of ice.” The Psalmist groans in Psalm 22:14, declaring, “I am poured out like water… my heart is like wax…”

Metaphors offer comparisons without saying, “like” or “as.” That is, “Jack’s feet were blocks of ice.” In Psalm 22:14, the writer says of his heart: “…it is melted in the midst of my bowels.” His heart isn’t actually physically melted like wax; he is using the metaphor to describe his current suffering.

Hypocatastasis is an implied resemblance that avoids naming the described thing at all. “Jack walked on blocks of ice.” In 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul describes our current spiritual dim-sightedness when he says, “For now we see through a glass, darkly…”

Parables are short stories that represent an idea by comparison. They create symbolic pictures in the imaginations of the hearers. “For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard…”[3]Parables teach a simple message or lesson.

Allegories are like extended parables, long stories with multiple symbolic parts that teach meaning. The tale of Pinocchio is an allegory about the struggle to choose right over wrong. When Pinocchio fibs repeatedly, his nose stretches and grows leaves to represent the reality that, “A lie keeps growing and growing until it’s as plain as the nose on your face.” When the boys go wild on Pleasure Island, they all begin to sprout donkey ears and tails and hooves and faces, representing the jackasses they have all made of themselves.

Types are often used in the Bible to foreshadow a person or event that has great future importance. The name “Jesus” is a variation of the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which means “Yahweh is salvation.” As Moses’ successor, Joshua became a type of Jesus in many ways — as the captain of the armies of Israel, as one who leads his people into the Promised Land and gives them rest.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Since there is just one way to be saved/enter the kingdom. With there being no alternatives then there is a definite connection between being born again and doing the will of God. God has commanded water baptism (Matthews 28:19-20 cf Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48) and those who obediently submit to baptism (doing God's will) are the one's who are born again.

Perhaps you draw a true conclusion, but you unfortunately based it on an untrue premise, <<God has commanded water baptism>> in Matthews 28:19-20.

 

[charity]

Hello all,

Here comes another water baptism thread for you! I'm starting another because I see this scripture coming up in all of them, and I have some things to discuss. I haven't read every post of every thread, so if someone already pointed out, my apologies.

Here's the main text:

John 3:5 KJV
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.

First thing, has anyone noticed that baptism isn't directly mentioned? Yet this verse is often quoted as being proof that water baptism is needed. Well, let's hold off on that for now... We will get to whether this is talking about baptism later.

I want to discuss this "water". This water will allow you enter the kingdom of God (which is in men, but that's a bit deep for now). Or at least that's what the verse suggests, and I agree.

But is this talking about physical water or spiritual water?

Let's look at a statement from the next chapter:

John 4:14 KJV
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him [called living water In verse 10] shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jesus here is obviously talking about spiritual or heavenly water. It will be a well within him that brings everlasting life.

That being said, let's revisit John 3:5. If you aren't born of water and the spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I have a feeling that in John 3:5 Jesus isn't talking about H2O. It doesn't seem reasonable that he's talking about literal water in chapter 3 and spiritual water in chapter 4 when he's discussing the same goal (entering the kingdom of God and having everlasting life).

If you still have doubts, let's look at something else Jesus said in chapter 3:

John 3:12 KJV
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Jesus said himself he is not speaking of earthly things, but heavenly things. So, I submit to you that "water" in verse 3:5 may not have been speaking of water baptism. Why? Because he was speaking of heavenly or spiritual things at this point.

I have more to point out, but for brevity's sake, I will let this stand for now. The bottom line is that I am not convinced John 3:5 has anything to do with water baptism.

'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."'
(John 3:5)
Hi @FHII,

What you say is established by the grammar of this verse, as I am informed in the margin of my Bible. I am told there that the words, 'of water and the spirit' are a figure of speech call hendiadys, meaning 'not two things but one' : by which the latter noun becomes a superlative and emphatic adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the the former noun, showing that one to be spiritual water: ie., not water but spirit. It is to be rendered, 'of water - yea, spiritual water'.

Praise God! - (For the perfection of His Word, that leaves nothing to our own interpretation)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[FHII]

'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."'
(John 3:5)
Hi @FHII,

What you say is established by the grammar of this verse, as I am informed in the margin of my Bible. I am told there that the words, 'of water and the spirit' are a figure of speech call hendiadys, meaning 'not two things but one' : by which the latter noun becomes a superlative and emphatic adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the the former noun, showing that one to be spiritual water: ie., not water but spirit. It is to be rendered, 'of water - yea, spiritual water'.

Praise God! - (For the perfection of His Word, that leaves nothing to our own interpretation)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

I wasn't aware of that, so thanks!I will look more into that!

 

[charity]

I wasn't aware of that, so thanks!I will look more into that!

Hello @FHII,

I have a copy of the two volume work of Dr E.W.Bullinger on, 'Figures of Speech used in the Bible'. I give you a link to it in PDF format, for free download, from bibleunderstanding.com

https://www.bibleunderstanding.com/figuresofspeechbullinger.pdf

It is am amazing work.
With love in Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Waiting on him]

Hello @FHII,

I have a copy of the two volume work of Dr E.W.Bullinger on, 'Figures of Speech used in the Bible'. I give you a link to it in PDF format, for free download, from bibleunderstanding.com

https://www.bibleunderstanding.com/figuresofspeechbullinger.pdf

It is am amazing work.
With love in Christ Jesus
Chris

Psalm 138:2 KJV
[2] I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is this Spiritual water, for He has magnified the Word above His Name.
Tecarta Bible

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Literal or physical things are used all the time in the Bible to show or mean a spiritual concept. I cannot think of one time a spiritual thing was ever used as a symbol for a physical thing. Can you?

Keen!

 

[Enoch111]

I have a copy of the two volume work of Dr E.W.Bullinger on, 'Figures of Speech used in the Bible'.

A word of caution regarding Bullinger. He had many good things to say, but he also created Hyper-Dispensationalism. Not a very good thing. So tread carefully with Bullinger.

 

[charity]

A word of caution regarding Bullinger. He had many good things to say, but he also created Hyper-Dispensationalism. Not a very good thing. So tread carefully with Bullinger.

Hi there, @Enoch111,

It is wise to tread carefully with any work of man, and measure everything by what is written in God's Word: and Bullinger himself would advocate that. There is nothing to fear, but everything to be gained by taking advantage of His hard work and expertise.

I am also in the catagory that you warned against: that is the box in which man would place me too. However, like Bullinger, I seek to rightly divide the Word of God, and study to show myself approved unto God. For it is He who will judge what I have built on the foundation which He has laid, and not my fellowmen.

In Christ Jesus
Chris