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

I agree.
It has to be brought in from other places in His word.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it seems that at least one other person agrees with him.

 

Whose "sound hermeneutics"?

"Reformed"?
"Traditionalist"?
"Catholic"?
"Methodist"?
"Baptist" ( they have three of them, depending on whether one is "Free Will Baptist", "Traditionalist Baptist" or "Particular Baptist" )?

There are quite a few of them out there, and they all differ.

 

You can be assured...

Sound hermeneutics = Interpretations which agree with me

 

Think for a minute...

The Bible is the only book written that needs entire "Bible colleges" and "hermeneutics" designed around it in order to help to understand it...because to most people who read it, it's nothing but contradictions.
Also, it is the only book written that has competing "interpretations" that differ, sometimes, wildly.
No book authored and written by men has this distinction, that I am aware of.

So, ask yourself this:
Why is there so much confusion about the Bible from those who profess Christ, when His word specifically tells us that we as believers in Jesus Christ have been given all that pertains to life and godliness?

" According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" ( 2 Peter 1:3 )

and, His Spirit is our Teacher and we don't actually need men to help us to understand it?

" But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." ( 1 John 2:27 ).

Where do "correct hermeneutics" originate...
Men, or God?

 

It wouldn't be affirming it. It would explain why he asks such a silly question. Here the teacher of the law is confused about what Jesus is saying. He's trying to get clarification. (That seemed to happen a lot.)
Where else do we find being born of water mentioned?
I doubt people are referencing a Zwingli commentary, but if you have one, feel free to share.

 

Back to the OP:

I maintain that in John 3:5, "water" = "word" ( I once thought it meant physical birth, but that changed recently ).
Those born of God have been "washed" in the word...they are born of both "water" and Spirit.

The word and the Spirit of God are both involved in making one born again:

" Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." ( James 1:18 ).
" 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;" ( Titus 3:5 ).


The word of God is living water to those who thirst for His words...

" A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, thou [art] my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;" ( Psalms 63:1 ).
" Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." ( Isaiah 55:1 ).

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." ( Revelation 22:17 ).



What is "the water of life"?
" It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life." ( John 6:63 ).

 

Again "born again" and vs. 6 Flesh and spirit set the context for "water". Anyone who sees baptism there is reading it into that passage.

 

Notice 3 flawed aspects of David's debating style:
(1) He ducks posts (like #58) that in great detail decisively refutes his interpretive screed.
Hence, he avoids the needed detailed critical engagement.

(2) Modern interpreters need to be acutely aware of the danger of eisegeting modern theological agendas back in to first century Christianity and need to recognize that the unanimous verdict of the early post-NT church provides important evidence of the original intent of apostolic teaching.

(3) Davud's cavalier dismissal of the unanimous position of the early Church Fathers reflects his unstated bias that the Holy Spirit basically deserted His Church shortly after the apostolic age and until the Reformation. This Baptist bias overlooks 2 hermeneutical principles:
(a) Biblical revelation is divinely inspired, but very incomplete. It provides the basics of what we need for faith and life, but does not clearly and directly confront many important questions. That's why pro-choice and pro-life Christians can claim the Bible in support of their conflicting positions. The argument can only be settled by the unanimous verdict of the early Church Fathers, typically expressed by the first-century catechetical work, Didache; "Thou shalt not procure an abortion (4:2)."

(b) We must acknowledge the need to respect the role of the Spirit-inspired Church Fathers in protecting the orthodoxy and true teaching of the Church, for example, with respect to which NT books should be excluded and included in the NT canon. Hebrews was neither written by Paul nor does it claim to be divinely inspired, yet Catholics rightly chose to include it in the canon. On the other hand, Catholics rightly ultimately rejected the canonicity of the very orthodox 1 Clement, even though Clement claims his epistle is God's divinely inspired Word and an apostolic congregation (the Corinthian church) deemed it authoritative and inspired enough to mass produce it.

 

The meaning of “water” in the context of this passage is not capable of the meaning of baptism. To be born of water is the same thing as being born of the flesh. Being born of the flesh signifies one’s first birth from the womb, while being born of the Spirit is equivalent to the new birth or being born again.

 

Dave, your position would be stronger, in my opinion, if you could reference old testament passages where God uses the image of water to reference his word. With respect, I don't see how your verses support your contention.
I am not opposed to a different interpretation of John 3:5, but my general rule is:
If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
The plain sense would support human birth being water and the spiritual birth being Spirit.

 

This is the interpretation of almost every single Protestant Reformer, including our 17th-century Particular Baptist forefathers.

 

You brought him up (post #8) to sustain your point, but we can all now see that his words do not.

 

I take whatever comes to my mind.
To me, "common sense" doesn't apply, as it agrees with what I see other Scriptures saying.

I like to look and look again, because sometimes it takes a while for meanings to become apparent to me.

Do you know of other places where the Lord tells us that "water" means physical birth?

If so, then I would be interested in seeing them.
BTW, I agree that spiritual birth is "Spirit" here.

For now, what does "water" here mean, to you?

" That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," ( Ephesians 5:26 ).

 

The context of the conversation gives us the answer. There is no need, in my opinion, to look outside of Jesus conversation to understand. Based upon how Nicodemus responds to Jesus, it seems Nicodemus saw water as physical birth.

 

I agree with that, and up until this thread, that has been my understanding of it...
But as this thread developed, something else came to mind, and that is why I posted as I did.

I saw Scripture defining and interpreting Scripture.

Here are a few others:
" My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?" ( Psalms 42:2 ).
David was "thirsty".
Psalms 63:1. <--- David is, again, "thirsty".
Psalms 143:6. <----- Again.

Is he thirsty for "water"?
" And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." ( Revelation 21:6 ).

The Lord Jesus promises to give those that are athirst ( thirsty ) of the fountain of the water of life freely.
What is the "water of life" here?
The word of God, or Jesus Christ Himself?

Also, who thirsts after it?

" And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." ( Revelation 22:17 ).

This is my final reply in this thread.

Who are the "whosoever will", if no one "wills" in and of themselves ( Romans 3:11 )?
Who thirsts after God, but Christ's sheep?

 

Your Scriptural acrobatics aside - that's NOT what the text says.
It says, "Repent AND be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

WATER and SPIRIT - just like John 3:5.

 

Scripture acrobatics?
Your myopic visions aside, what the passage tells us...is what it tells us.
Peter connects repentance with forgiveness of sins. He does not connect baptism with forgiveness of sins. If he had done the latter, then the thief on the cross would have needed to be baptized in order for his sins to be forgiven.
In 1 John 1:9 John would have said: "If we confess our sins (and are baptized) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."
But, John never says this. In fact, nowhere is your myopic rendering stated in scripture whereby water baptism forgives sins. So, since you have one verse that you butcher and nothing else, and since the greek language connects repentance with forgiveness, it is quite certain that you are entirely wrong.

 

Is it your contention that the 'water' discussed in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid? And the conjunction 'and' tying water to Holy Spirit can be ignored, e.g., "be born again of water and the Holy Spirit"? Christ says a man is born "of" water "AND. . .". A person is born of women "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh", not of water is flesh. Only waterlilies, tadpoles and Mosquitoes are born out of water (not to mention a host of bacteria.]; is Christ calling you one of these water born varmints? Water is not the origin of man.

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (John 3:5) This is a unique doorway to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Kingdom of God, the new Israel. St. Paul taught that Baptism was “circumcision not made by hand”, the catechumen Baptized becomes a member of the community in the Body of Christ [Colossians 2:11]. Acts chapter 2, verse 38 St. Paul speaks clearly of the remission of sins; in Acts 22:16; “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins” and in Acts 5:25 sqq (surely you don't wash in amniotic fluids. Because "Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water (washing in water) in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.“ [Ephesians 5:25 seqq.] He loved the Church so much that he viewed her as his spouse without spot or wrinkle, not actual sin or original sin. In baptism all sin is washed away to be made holy: an infusion of supernatural graces that renders the recipient an adopted son of God.

Folks, the things that come out of the stagnate water in you sink is not a man born again. If someone makes that claim, run!

Nevertheless, the insistence by many "Born againers " is to reference water in verse 3:3 to amniotic fluid. But, Christ seems to change His mind by the time He got to verse 5! Or, maybe He got confused as He explained to Nicodemus that he didn't need to climb back into his mother's womb, or, maybe John just didn't hear it the way you wanted him to. John 3:3 clearly says "born again" or "born from above (the Greek anothen). Verse 3 then defines the necessity of being "born again" - to enter the Kingdom of God.

In both verses to be born again or born from above does not imply two separate births. The reason is quite simple, if one is born of amniotic fluid and he is without a soul or spirit from his birth, stillborn, deader than a doorknob; both body and soul are required for life. If somehow the zombie managed to walk the aisle, as you like to say, and his spirit (as in soul) is only then born, you still don't have life but a possessed hunk of dead flesh animated, or you have birth for the first time, but not of woman rather of water. What John 3:5 says is that there is a rebirth of the whole person (body and soul) with the sacramental water and of [kai] the Holy Spirit (not the soul - rather the Holy Spirit pneuma commonly used by John for the Holy Spirit). If you are born "from on high" in verse 3 then you are "born from on high" in verse 5 of water AND of the Holy Spirit. The same Greek word for water is used everywhere throughout Scripture, simply replace amniotic fluid for water and you get sickening results:
And entering into a boat, he passed over the amniotic and came into his own city." [Matthew 9:1] or;
And when his disciples were come over the amniotic they had forgotten to take bread." [Matthew 16:5] - they probably lost their lunch as well; and don't you loose your you, ox or ass from the manger, and lead them to amniotic?" [Luke 13:15]. The women of Judea were baby giving ladies to produce enough amniotic water to "fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim." [John 2:7], wow what a trick. The produced so much amniotic fluids they had to "pass over" them

JoeT

 

Jesus made clear that Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5, Mark 16:16). It is the normative means - bu t God can and DOES make exceptions, like the Thief on the Cross. He would have been baptized before he died, had he the opportunity,

 

No he didn't. You are forcing your dogma upon God and his word. It is disgraceful that you mishandle what God has said and insert your opinion upon God while lying about what God actually said.
There are two times when we see such mishandling of God's word.
First, we see it when Satan tempts Adam and Eve in the garden. "Has God not said..."
Second, we see it in the wilderness when Satan tempts Jesus. "Has God not said..."
Maryson, your misuse of scripture follows a pattern established by the devil. Be very careful because you are on thin ground with God when you falsely use his word to teach what he does not teach.