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

[Marymog]

I'm 100% with @FHII on this one....all the way.
Sorry guys , but the regenerating Living Water that Jesus spoke about is of so much greater importance that all the silly quibbling about wet water that cannot do anything for anyone....except keep out flesh alive when we need a drink...but Jesus says ..My Water will quench the Spiritual thirst.

I prefer to follow the example that Jesus and the Apostles gave us and be baptized in water. I suspect there is a reason they gave us that example to follow.

I prefer to do what Jesus told us to do in Matthew 28:19 and the Apostles did along with the what the 1st century Christians did according to their own writings. I suspect there is a reason He told us to do that and they baptized in water.

I prefer to do what Peter said in Acts 2:38 and believe that the water used in baptism did what he said it did in that passage.

To suggest that water isn't necessary for baptism is to suggest we do not need to follow the example of Jesus and the Apostles and do what they told us/taught to do.

If water "cannot" do anything for anyone" then don't use it in your baptism. If you don't use it you are not doing what Jesus/Apostles told us to do. If your not following the sound teaching of Scripture your tickling ears are falling for a un-sound teaching that started with the Reformation. I think the 1st century Christians got it right and the Reformers got it wrong.

I guess we really don't need to lay hands on people either.....after all.....they are just hands laying on a person!!! What can that really do?

My two cents worth.

 

[Enoch111]

To suggest that water isn't necessary for baptism is to suggest we do not need to follow the example of Jesus and the Apostles and do what they told us/taught to do.

I agree with this sentiment. What I disagree with is baptismal regeneration. Christian baptism in water by immersion is A COMMANDMENT of Christ. Anyone who questions that does not really believer God or believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But baptism does not save anyone. It is administered AFTER the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

ACTS 10: PETER IN THE HOME OF CORNELIUS
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word. [BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST = SALVATION]
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [BELIEVING JEWS ASTONISHED THAT GENTILES WERE INCLUDED]
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [SUPERNATURAL TONGUES = EVIDENCE]*
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [WATER AS CRITICAL AS THE SPIRIT]
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.[BAPTISM A COMMANDMENT]

*Note: There are a couple of instances in Acts where speaking in tongues became the external evidence of the internal baptism with the Holy Spirit. But this was not the norm, and is still not the norm.

 

[Marymog]

I agree with this sentiment. What I disagree with is baptismal regeneration. Christian baptism in water by immersion is A COMMANDMENT of Christ. Anyone who questions that does not really believer God or believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But baptism does not save anyone. It is administered AFTER the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

ACTS 10: PETER IN THE HOME OF CORNELIUS
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word. [BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST = SALVATION]
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [BELIEVING JEWS ASTONISHED THAT GENTILES WERE INCLUDED]
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [SUPERNATURAL TONGUES = EVIDENCE]*
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [WATER AS CRITICAL AS THE SPIRIT]
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.[BAPTISM A COMMANDMENT]

*Note: There are a couple of instances in Acts where speaking in tongues became the external evidence of the internal baptism with the Holy Spirit. But this was not the norm, and is still not the norm.

YOU say baptism doesn't save anyone but Scripture says opposite: 1 Peter 3:21.

He told us to baptize and be baptized. Obeying Christ saves us also. If we don't obey Him, we are not saved.

All these passages are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other. They are two sides to a coin.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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.

The baptism of the great commission (Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16; Lk 24:47) has been commanded as seen in Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 22:16, etc....

In Matt 28:19-20 the participle "go" can be in the imperative meaning disciples have been commanded to go, teach and baptize. Disciples in turn teach men and commanded men to submit to water baptism. Therefore Jesus has commanded all people, in order to become His disciple, to be taught and baptized meaning one cannot become a disciple of Christ while not willing to be obedient to being taught and baptized.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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.

The Bible uses figures of speech but when it comes to water bpatism it refers to a literal burial in literal water, see John 3:22-23; Acts 8 Phillip water baptized the eunuch.

You have not whown me from the context of Jn 3:5 why water in this verse should refer to anything other than literal water. I understand people's theological bias does not want it to refer to literal water but nothing in the context shows that water means anything other than literal water or that Spirit means anything other than literal Spirit. The fact that John 3:22-23 happened after Christ spoke to Nicodemus changes nothing. Litgeral water in John 3:5 as literal water in John 3:22-23.

Other born again verse clearly shows that water refers to literal water baptism:

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

'Spirit' of Jn 3:5 is equivalent to 'Spirit' of 1 Cor 12:13 that is equivalent to 'Holy Ghost' of Tts 3:5.
As 'water' of John 3:5 is equivalent to 'baptized' of 1 Cor 12:13 which is equivalent to 'laver of water' of Tts 3:5.

Pretty obvious.

And again:
Matthew 7:21----------------doeth the will of the Father>>>>>>>>>>>>enter the kingdom
John 3:5----------------------born of water and Spirit>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enter the kingdom.

Being born of water requires a doing on the part of man in submitting to water baptism as commanded by God.

For physical birth to take place and a person to be born/be begotton then an egg must come into contact with a seed. Likewise in the spiritual birth a 'conception' must take place when we come into contact with the seed, the word of God, Luke 8:11. And it is by this seed, the word of God that we are begotten, James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23. The seed/word saves (James 1:21) by instructing men in how to be saved by being water baptized, Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48; Mark 16:16; John 3:5.

Proper exegesis is that words are to be understood literally unless something in the context shows a figurative meaning. But there is nothing in the immediate context that water is figurative for anything other than water so no symbolic meaning applies here.

 

[FHII]

You have not whown me from the context of Jn 3:5 why water in this verse should refer to anything other than literal water. I understand people's theological bias does not want it to refer to literal water but nothing in the context shows that water means anything other than literal water or that Spirit means anything other than literal Spirit

Thank you Earnest. In that case I leave you to your beliefs and will offer no more to you. I have presented my arguments and reasoning. Furthermore, new ideas were given by other posters that support my theory. If these are not enough to convince you, then it's time to end the discussion between us.

Please realize I am not against literal water baptism. Never have been.

You mentioned "theological bias". That is fine if you want to pin it on me... So long as you realize that you have it too.

 

[marksman]

Hello all,
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:

You or others have made assumptions that are not accepted in the exegesis of scripture.

First, you don't take ONE verse to prove anything in scripture. As the bible is its best commentary, you take EVERY verse about a subject to learn what it means.

Second, the original Greek points out that the water referred to means like rain as in wet so we are talking about physical water and as it relates to being born again then it is ONE of the verses that teaches us that baptism in water is part and parcel of being born again along with repentance.

In those days, there were many different religions and it was quite common that to be seen as a committed member of them you had to be baptized by immersion in water. Without this, you were not considered authentic.

 

[Enoch111]

...so we are talking about physical water...

Is this talking about physical water? That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word [of God]... (Eph 5:26).

Since -- according to you -- we are to take every verse into account, why are you not doing that in this context? The Word of God is not physical water, but water is a metaphor for the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16) as well as the incorruptible seed of the New Birth (1 Pet 1:23-25). Here is what James says: Of his own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.(Jas 1:18)

"Begat" speaks of the New Birth. So how does God use the Gospel to bring about the New Birth? The answer is found in John 1:12,13: But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Gospel generates saving faith, and those who believe are born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. Ordinary water has absolutely nothing to do with internal and spiritual things. It is an outward sign of an inward reality.

 

[FHII]

You or others have made assumptions that are not accepted in the exegesis of scripture.

While I am willing to listen to others and consider what they say, in the end I don't concern myself with what is accepted interpretation. I want to know what actually is true. I want to know what God is saying, not what is accepted by men.

First, you don't take ONE verse to prove anything in scripture. As the bible is its best commentary, you take EVERY verse about a subject to learn what it means.

I am not sure you understand what I am trying to prove. I am not taking one verse to try to prove my point. I am analyzing one verse to see what it truly means and I used at least 3 verses about the subject as backing. Now I can bring out many more, but for brevity's sake I stuck with 3. I have not been shy about debating and considering any other verses proposed to me.

Now, I agree you don't use one verse to prove a point. But some folks go to their Bible app or software and enter in a keyword or words and without even reading them list them as proof. That I am against and people who believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary do that. John 3:5 is one of the verses they include (and there are others).

Second, the original Greek points out that the water referred to means like rain as in wet so we are talking about physical water and as it relates to being born again then it is ONE of the verses that teaches us that baptism in water is part and parcel of being born again along with repentance.

That is incorrect on two points. Using Biblehub's Strong's Greek Concordance, 5204 (water in John 3:5) is:

water.

And genitive case, hudatos (hoo'-dat-os), etc. From the base of huetos; water (as if rainy) literally or figuratively -- water

So, the word is "hudor" and it means "water". Not rainy or wet. It comes from a base word which still means water but as if rainy. And second, it's meaning can be literal or figurative.

Thus, it is well within the definition to conciser this is a spiritual (figurative) water and not literal H2O.

In those days, there were many different religions and it was quite common that to be seen as a committed member of them you had to be baptized by immersion in water. Without this, you were not considered authentic.

Oh really? You have some history on that or are you just making that up? Unless it comes with official paperwork it's not really useful as you'd be dry in an hour!

Even if your point is true, it's still worthless. God looks not on the flesh, but on the heart. Furthermore, it isn't listed in Matthew 6, but that chapter does show that God doesn't acknowledge public displays of prayer, giving and fasting. I seriously doubt he needs one to be baptized in public to be authentic.

Again, even if what you say is true, it's to be seen of men.

 

[FHII]

Ordinary water has absolutely nothing to do with internal and spiritual things. It is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Yea! Great quote! Amen!

 

[charity]

'Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
except a man be born of water and of the spirit,
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God '
(John 3:5)

Hi @FH11,

Your thread was mis-headed, was it not? Because your OP was really about the wording of John 3:5, in which you advocated that spiritual water was what was meant, by 'water' and 'spirit', was it not?

Are the responses you have received in these 15 pages what you anticiticipated?

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Replies:- #274, #276, #280

 

[FHII]

'Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
except a man be born of water and of the spirit,
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God '
(John 3:5)

Hi @FH11,

Your thread was mis-headed, was it not? Because your OP was really about the wording of John 3:5, in which you advocated that spiritual water was what was meant, by 'water' and 'spirit', was it not?

Are the responses you have received in these 15 pages what you anticiticipated?

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Absolutely! I anticipated such responses. I had some good responses that stayed on task. They haven't convinced me otherwise, but at least they addressed what I was talking about. I also had some that weren't on task and were simply passionate or off task. But yes, I anticipated all of that.

Yes, my OP was about the wording in one verse (John 3:5). I believe it means a spiritual water, not literal. I might add, your comments were very insightful! I have yet to have a look at the PDF file though... Too big for my phone! But I do want to look at it for this and other matters.

While my point is to address one verse and it's true meaning, it by no means addresses the entire spectrum and question of baptism.

I believe it was done with literal water and is ok to do so. If a Church wants to do it, and you want to be a part of that Church, then you should...

Yet, I point to a greater baptism which is being immersed in Christ. That is a baptism I do believe is necessary, and no... They aren't the same. No more so than literal circumcision is the same as circumcision of the heart and ears (Acts 7:51.... Comparing spiritual things with spiritual things!)

Water Baptism: Great! Baptized into Christ: Absolutely necessary!

 

[charity]

Thank you for responding, @FH11.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour
Chris

 

[Ezra]

Seems too me a lot of members on this forum place faith in their water baptism being the foundation of their salvation?

any one who thinks water baptism saves needs to read the Bible more close the elements is salvation is redemption by the blood saved by grace through faith justified by faith the Blood and grace .its a spiritual Birth called regeneration/ born again.. the cross is the payment for our sin .no amount of water has ever saved anyone . baptism follows salvation symbolic of the old man dying the new man resurrected out of the watery grave . to claim water baptism saves is HERETIC
One who causes divisions, factions.

A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. ( Titus 3:10-11 ) it is sill to try to debate with these type folks . there blinded by the god of this world

 

[marksman]

While I am willing to listen to others and consider what they say, in the end I don't concern myself with what is accepted interpretation. I want to know what actually is true. I want to know what God is saying, not what is accepted by men.


I am not sure you understand what I am trying to prove. I am not taking one verse to try to prove my point. I am analyzing one verse to see what it truly means and I used at least 3 verses about the subject as backing. Now I can bring out many more, but for brevity's sake I stuck with 3. I have not been shy about debating and considering any other verses proposed to me.

Now, I agree you don't use one verse to prove a point. But some folks go to their Bible app or software and enter in a keyword or words and without even reading them list them as proof. That I am against and people who believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary do that. John 3:5 is one of the verses they include (and there are others).



That is incorrect on two points. Using Biblehub's Strong's Greek Concordance, 5204 (water in John 3:5) is:

water.

And genitive case, hudatos (hoo'-dat-os), etc. From the base of huetos; water (as if rainy) literally or figuratively -- water

So, the word is "hudor" and it means "water". Not rainy or wet. It comes from a base word which still means water but as if rainy. And second, it's meaning can be literal or figurative.

Thus, it is well within the definition to conciser this is a spiritual (figurative) water and not literal H2O.


Oh really? You have some history on that or are you just making that up? Unless it comes with official paperwork it's not really useful as you'd be dry in an hour!

Even if your point is true, it's still worthless. God looks not on the flesh, but on the heart. Furthermore, it isn't listed in Matthew 6, but that chapter does show that God doesn't acknowledge public displays of prayer, giving and fasting. I seriously doubt he needs one to be baptized in public to be authentic.

Again, even if what you say is true, it's to be seen of men.

I never make anything up as I don't need to. I prefer to do my homework and delve into the truth as many, many writers see it and then put it all together to come to a solid conclusion.

 

[FHII]

I never make anything up as I don't need to. I prefer to do my homework and delve into the truth as many, many writers see it and then put it all together to come to a solid conclusion.

Yea... Ok. Great!

 

[marksman]

Is this talking about physical water? That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word [of God]... (Eph 5:26).

Since -- according to you -- we are to take every verse into account, why are you not doing that in this context? The Word of God is not physical water, but water is a metaphor for the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16) as well as the incorruptible seed of the New Birth (1 Pet 1:23-25). Here is what James says: Of his own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.(Jas 1:18)

"Begat" speaks of the New Birth. So how does God use the Gospel to bring about the New Birth? The answer is found in John 1:12,13: But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Gospel generates saving faith, and those who believe are born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. Ordinary water has absolutely nothing to do with internal and spiritual things. It is an outward sign of an inward reality.

I was discussing a particular verse which had been raised and questioned. I did not do an exegesis of the subject matter. If I had I would have done it as a series of posts using the various verses that speak of water baptism.

And the outward sign of an inward reality is a cliched comment not backed up by scripture.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

They have no problem with Spirit being literal Spirit but have a problem with water being literal water and this lacks consistency.

It's you <lacking consistency> 'Spirit' consistently being not <literal>, chum.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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.

If you take John 3:5 <consistent> with itself, you are saying Jesus told Nicodemus to be born twice out of "flesh", verse 6 <in the context>!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Matthew 28:19-20 in His great commission. Jesus commissioned disciples (humans) to administer water baptism as the Phillip did with the eunuch.

You are lost. Where are you? You don't know this way or that, in Matthew 28 or in Acts 8?

And what did you slip to mention between 'the' and 'Phillip'? Apostle? No, no apostle this Phillip was; Acts only knows of "Phillip the evangelist", "one of the seven" deacons. Acts 6:5, chapter 8 and 21:8.

Now in Acts 8:26 "a messenger of the Lord" -- one of the believers who (v8) "were scattered abroad" after the stoning of (v2) Stephen who "went everywhere preaching the word", inter alia (v5) in Samaria, (v25) "returned to Jerusalem", and he, "26 spake unto Phillip (the deacon) to go south towards Gaza from Jerusalem. 27 And as he went, he [incidentally] saw a man, a servant .." "29 Then said the spirit (his intuition) in Phillip, approach and stay with the chariot..." The rest we already discussed. No one, no agent, no messenger, no <Spirit>, and least of all <<Jesus commissioned disciples (or <humans>) to administer water baptism>> OR ANY BAPTISM WHATEVER. But the servant, defiantly taunted, "Here is water, what hinders me to be baptised?" But the deacon pleaded with the servant, Don't you understand, "If thou BELIEVEST with all thine heart, thou mayest". Note: “mayest”, not must, because "if thou BELIEVEST with all thine heart, thou SHALT be saved" as Paul declared; the grace of God is ENOUGH.