John 3:5

[Jedi Knight]

Hi gang,I personally think Jesus was telling Nic @ nite that he should know what he was talking about"are you not a teacher of Isreal?". The natural man recieves not the things of God for they are spiritually discerned. So he said water and spirit to explain natural water to spirit"invisable". Like the wind to spirit also to help Nic understand the invisable.

 

[TCGreek]

To those who believe that the "water" of John 3:5 refers to baptism, I have one question:

Where in Scripture is water-baptism ever refered to as means of "being born again" or "being born from above"?

 

[Me4Him]

To those who believe that the "water" of John 3:5 refers to baptism, I have one question:

Where in Scripture is water-baptism ever refered to as means of "being born again" or "being born from above"?

I don't think it can be found, the "Baptism" mentioned in relation to being "born again" is a "Spiritual baptism", by the spirit.

Jesus said being born again was like the wind blowing through the trees, you can't "SEE IT", except the evidence thereof,

Water baptism can be seen, it's closer to a prefigure/shadow of the "spiritual events".

 

[Zenas]

To those who believe that the "water" of John 3:5 refers to baptism, I have one question:

Where in Scripture is water-baptism ever refered to as means of "being born again" or "being born from above"?

Does it really need to be mentioned more than once, i.e., in John 3:5? However, without using the term "born again", Romans 6:4 conveys this concept quite clearly.

 

[Olivencia]

The beginning of Romans 6 refers to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is simply the picture of it.

Olivencia

 

[Zenas]

The beginning of Romans 6 refers to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is simply the picture of it.

Olivencia

You don't think Romans 6:3-4 is referring to water baptism?

 

[Olivencia]

Paul is referring to Holy Spirit baptism knowing that water baptism is simply its picture. Not only is this true here in Romans 6 but it is also true in Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12 and Ephesians 4:5. I intend (Lord willing) to start a thread about all these passages in a day or so.
I know this thread is about John 3:5 and there is no way that "water" here could refer to Christian water baptism in the name of the Lord/Triune God when it was years before it was even instituted. This is an anachronistic interpretation for the Lord Jesus expected Nicodemus to know what He was talking about (John 3:10). Please supply any Old Testament text where water is understood to mean water baptism in the name of the Lord/Triune God where this Pharisee should have known about.

Thank you

Olivencia

 

[DHK]

But why would they all get it wrong? There wasn't even a single "voice crying in the wilderness" that John 3:5 means something other than water baptism.

I don't believe they ALL got it wrong. I don't believe you have researched them ALL. Do you even know how many church fathers there were, and how many writings they left? Do you know, for example that Tertullian changed his views on Baptism, as he later on became a Montanist which does not believe in baptismal regeneration?

"Not a single voice"? Really, that has got to be one of the biggest hyberboles I have seen yet.

That's odd. I'm only familiar with one passage that says "faith alone", James 2:24, and in context it says "not by faith alone."

Then you are not familiar with either the Scripture, nor the English (or Greek) language. Things can be said in different ways and still mean the same thing.

 

[Zenas]

I don't believe they ALL got it wrong. I don't believe you have researched them ALL. Do you even know how many church fathers there were, and how many writings they left? Do you know, for example that Tertullian changed his views on Baptism, as he later on became a Montanist which does not believe in baptismal regeneration?

"Not a single voice"? Really, that has got to be one of the biggest hyberboles I have seen yet.

I don't know know how many church fathers there are but their known writings occupy several dozen volumes. As for Tertullian, he did believe in baptismal regeneration. It is true that he became a Montanist and from that point of view, Tertullian did discourage paedobaptism. His reason for doing so was similar to the legend surrounding the baptism of Constantine, who waited until he was dying to be baptized so he could die free of sin. Tertullian believed that if sin were committed after baptism the person was lost forever with no possibility of being saved. Therefore, he thought it better for children to wait to be baptized. Baptism for Tertullian the Montanist was like a trump card--once you have played it you cannot use it again.

As for the "not a single voice" allegation, let me just say that no one has ever shown me a church father that did not believe in baptismal regeneration. As I just pointed out, Tertullian always believed in this doctrine although he changed his views as to when baptism should be administered.

 

[TCGreek]

Does it really need to be mentioned more than once, i.e., in John 3:5? However, without using the term "born again", Romans 6:4 conveys this concept quite clearly.

To say that "water" refers to water baptism in John 3:5 apart from other supporting Scriptures, is to engage in circular reasoning. It won't get you far.

To appeal to Rom 6:4 is grasping at straws. Consider the context of Paul's use of baptism.

 

[Jedi Knight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycm3TqSHyMU Here is Nic @ Nite

 

[Zenas]

To say that "water" refers to water baptism in John 3:5 apart from other supporting Scriptures, is to engage in circular reasoning. It won't get you far.

To appeal to Rom 6:4 is grasping at straws. Consider the context of Paul's use of baptism.

I don't know how circular reasoning can apply to this situation. Immediately after the meeting with Nicodemus, Jesus and His disciples started to baptize. It is a natural sequitur. Moreover, despite DHK'S pleas to the contrary, early Christian writers are unanimous that John 3:5 refers to water baptism. And they don't do it argumentatively; they just say it matter of factly as if such a concept needs no argument. These men were not ignorant of scripture. Why do you think you, who lives nearly 2,000 years separated from this writing, understand it better than they who were only separated by a few hundred years at most? Or, putting it into modern context, do you think anyone reading the Declaration of Independence 2,000 years from now could possibly understand its meaning as well as you do?

As for Romans 6, it is all about baptism and regeneration into a new life. How we are buried into the death of Jesus and rising into a new life. About how one who has died (been baptized) is free of sin.

 

[TCGreek]

I don't know how circular reasoning can apply to this situation. Immediately after the meeting with Nicodemus, Jesus and His disciples started to baptize. It is a natural sequitur. Moreover, despite DHK'S pleas to the contrary, early Christian writers are unanimous that John 3:5 refers to water baptism. And they don't do it argumentatively; they just say it matter of factly as if such a concept needs no argument. These men were not ignorant of scripture. Why do you think you, who lives nearly 2,000 years separated from this writing, understand it better than they who were only separated by a few hundred years at most? Or, putting it into modern context, do you think anyone reading the Declaration of Independence 2,000 years from now could possibly understand its meaning as well as you do?

As for Romans 6, it is all about baptism and regeneration into a new life. How we are buried into the death of Jesus and rising into a new life. About how one who has died (been baptized) is free of sin.

How is it a natural sequitur when water baptism is not the issue?

You're grasping at straws here?

Faith alone in Jesus is what procures salvation. That's where the conversation ended up, not water baptism.

Did you take that part out of your Bible?

The narrative on John baptizing and so on, is only to show that John's baptism and ministry were preparatory for the Messiah. That's the point.

John says, "I must decrease, but he must increase." That's the point.

Not Baptismal Regeneration.

 

[Zenas]

How is it a natural sequitur when water baptism is not the issue?

You're grasping at straws here?

Faith alone in Jesus is what procures salvation. That's where the conversation ended up, not water baptism.

Did you take that part out of your Bible?

The narrative on John baptizing and so on, is only to show that John's baptism and ministry were preparatory for the Messiah. That's the point.

John says, "I must decrease, but he must increase." That's the point.

Not Baptismal Regeneration.

I'm not referring to John, I am referring to Jesus and His disciples. John 3:22 and John 4:1-2. You keep saying water baptism is not the issue, and I suppose you have to. Otherwise you would have to admit that John 3:5 is about baptismal regeneration and "we know that is not right." However, I am yet to find any scripture that teaches against it.

 

[Me4Him]

I'm not referring to John, I am referring to Jesus and His disciples. John 3:22 and John 4:1-2. You keep saying water baptism is not the issue, and I suppose you have to. Otherwise you would have to admit that John 3:5 is about baptismal regeneration and "we know that is not right." However, I am yet to find any scripture that teaches against it.

"Regeneration" is 100% a "Spiritual event", baptized by the "Spirit",

There is nothing "physical" attached to it, such as Baptized in "water". (H20)

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; (Physical)

and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (Spiritual)

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (Doctrine/belief in Jesus) and of the Spirit,

You've confess your sins to God to be saved, but like the wind blowing through the trees, people can't see that, "Spiritual birth",

Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

now through Baptism in water, (H20) which people can see, you're confessing Jesus before men.

Lu 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.





Ro 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

Jesus ask the question:

Mr 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

That "CUP" was Jesus's death for our salvation,

Mt 26:39 O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:

We have to be as willing to crucify the old man to destroy the body of sin as Jesus was, but it's a "spiritual death" rather than a "literal death",

This is "Shown", and the purpose of, "Water baptism".



Andrew T:

I like the new board. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

I was meditating on what it means to be born of water and spirit. Thinking of the crucifixion, I was taken to the time after Jesus' death where the soldier pierced Jesus' side and water and blood came out. Could this "water" be what is referred to, signifying Christ's death and resurrection? The imagry of the soldiers being sprayed with His blood and water after piercing Him due to the effects of pericardial and pleural effusion is powerful.

Due to the controversial nature of this passage, and differing opinions...plausible?

Ever consider investing in a time-honored, universally recognized set of commentaries?

 

[webdog]

Ever consider investing in a time-honored, universally recognized set of commentaries?

edited...not worth the time.

"Do not feed the trolls"

 

[TCGreek]

I'm not referring to John, I am referring to Jesus and His disciples. John 3:22 and John 4:1-2. You keep saying water baptism is not the issue, and I suppose you have to. Otherwise you would have to admit that John 3:5 is about baptismal regeneration and "we know that is not right." However, I am yet to find any scripture that teaches against it.

Again, you're missing the point because you're after baptismal regeneration. Let the text speak for itself!

The point is Jesus and his ministry, not John. Please notice the contrasts.

Again, it's not about baptismal regeneration.

 

[Zenas]

Again, you're missing the point because you're after baptismal regeneration. Let the text speak for itself!

The point is Jesus and his ministry, not John. Please notice the contrasts.

Again, it's not about baptismal regeneration.

After this, Jesus and His disciples went to the Judean countryside, where He spent time with them and baptized. John 3:22.

Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
2(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
3He left Judea and went away again into Galilee. John 4:1-3.

These are the scriptures I cited, TC, so don't accuse me of focusing on John. I AM focusing on Jesus and I'm surprised that such an extremely literate person is having so much trouble reading plain English. My point is that immediately after Jesus finished His meeting with Nicodemus He, i.e., Jesus went to baptizing. This is a natural sequitur. It has NOTHING to do with John and you are demonstrating your ignorance, or just plain obstinance, by suggesting I am talking about John.

 

[Marcia]

My point is that immediately after Jesus finished His meeting with Nicodemus He, i.e., Jesus went to baptizing. This is a natural sequitur.

But the text does not say that baptism saves. Jesus also says this to Nicodemus:
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."