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

First of all - it's not "my" pattern - but that of Christ's 2000 year-old Church that I am simply parroting.

This has been the constant, living teaching of His Church since the Apostles.
YOUR views on Baptism were only invented after the 16th century. YOU are the one who is forcing your opinion on God's sacred Word.

Tell me - was EVERY single Early Church Father from Ignatius of Antioch to Augustine wrong about Baptismal Regeneration and John 3:5?
Was EVERYBODY wrong until the 16th century?
Do you have any idea how spiritually-arrogant that belief is - that Christ's Church died out in the first century contrary to His promise that it NEVER would in Matt. 16:18?

 

It is not my problem that your State Controlled Church has been wrong for over 1500 years. False teaching was already infiltrating the church during the days of the Apostles. Peter even warns against your church and its false teachings.
So, it doesn't surprise me that a church that has followed the devil would misuse the Bible and teach you how to misuse it as well.
Now, back to John 3:5, since there is no internal evidence for baptism in Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus, it is very clear in the text that baptism is not what Jesus was referring to. Maryson, the text trumps your church.

 

The first 3 chapters of John's Gospel are literally DRENCHED in the transforming waters of Baptism.

Chapter 1
Jesus is Baptized - and what do we see?? WATER and SPIRIT.

Chapter 2
The Wedding at Cana, Jesus transforms WATER into wine in His first recorded miracle.

Chapter 3
Jesus answers Nicodemus who has asked him how a man is born AGAIN. Jesus tells him that a man must be born (again) of water and spirit to enter the Kingdom of God.
The Protestant view that it is talking about amniotic fluid is asinine because it is saying that EVERYBODY besides Adam and Eve will inherit the Kingdom of Gpod because they are born of "water". Nicodemus was asking about REBIRTH - not Birth.
Jesus is talking about BAPTISM - with water and spirit - just as was present at HIS Baptism.

After the conversation with Nicodemus - Jesus and His Apostle spend time BAPTIZING people.
John's emphasis on the transforming waters of Baptism in these first 3 chapters is no mistake.

This is "Bible 101" . . .

 

As for "following the devil" - there is NOTHING that pleased Satan more that the perpetual-splintering that is the tens of thousands of disjointed Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to have been "led" by the Holy Spirit.

What a mess . . .

 

Here's the passage. No water baptism mentioned. Not even once.

John 3:1-15
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesusby night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born againhe cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘Youmust be born again.’ The windblows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but youdo not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Maryson, you are using eisegesis to project your church dogma on the passage and stating "Has not God said..." Be careful with what you are doing. It may very well not be from God.

 

What is "asinine" is claiming the protestant view is claiming everyone will inherent the kingdom. Such an accusation lacks reason and common acumen. Further it is a poor attempt at eisegesis as it bears no resemblance of exegesis. It certainly isnt "bible 101".

Vs. 6 interprets vs. 5 for us. I suggest you start there.

 

God reformed the apostate church at Rome by removing his elect from "Jezebel" and leaving "Jezebel" to it's folly.

 

It's not "eisegesis" just because the word "Baptism" is not explicitly used.
This is a junior Bible student mistake.

Doctrine comes to us from Scripture in Explicit and Implicit textual content.
For example - NOWHERE is there ANY mention of the Trinity, yet, the context of the teaching is implicit in Scripture. We never read about the Incarnation either - yet it is implicitly taught.

By the way - don't look for the word "Bible" in the Bible, either because it's NOT there . . .

 

No - flawed, sinful MEN splintered Christ's Church which continues to splinter to this day to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim to have the "truth".

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

Like I said - its a mess that Satan is delighted with.

 

No, I suggest YOU start with Nicodemus's question - which is about being REBORN, not born.

 

It's eisegesis and more than one person has called you out.

 

You realize your State Controlled Church was a devise of the devil for centuries. Killing and martyring the elect to hold and maintain power while slaughtering the sheep is something that God would never approve. Yet, your church did so without impunity. Instead of supporting it, you should be apologizing for it and weeping over it's lack of repentance.

 

@MarysSon, notice how these Baptists continually duck posts that demonstrate in detail Jesus' conditions for salvation: faith and baptism: "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)."
Notice, too, that most of these Baptists also continually duck Peter's explicit teaching that baptism as a "pledge saves:
"...baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)."

Their utter lack of exposure to the insights of academic book commentaries on the points at issue here thus forces them to resort to the desperate expedient of impressing upon you the mindless consensus of the myopic and carefully sheltered Baptist Ghetto:

Particular: "It's eisegesis and more than one person has called you out."

oundly refuted, they try to scare you by nastily labeling your church demonic, oblivious to the historically essential role of the Catholic church in defeating dangerous heresies in the first few centuries that came close to destroying theological orthodoxy. So sad! Despite this, hang in there, buddy! You are demonstrating the superiority of Catholics' grasp of Scripture that those of us who exposed to academic Bible conferences at the highest levels regularly get to observe. Sigh! Not a good day for my pride in Evangelical identity.

 

Born of water, baptism. A physical action that has a spiritual regeneration that is mentioned many times in the Scriptures. It's so simple, why is anyone trying to make this concept so difficult to believe?

 

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". But in case you haven't heard, the Church has apologized and repented for it's actions in the past. Pope John Paul II did this in regards to the killings of Protestants after the "Reformation" in 1995 during a visit to the Czech Republic. Now follow the Christian way, accept the apology and move on.

 

Again vs. 6 clears this up. Further Nicodemus thought his physical birth as a Jew and a descendent of Abraham provided his salvation. Jesus was addressing that issue. So yes He was addressing both. Vs. 6 that which is flesh is flesh (born) that which is spirit is spirit ( reborn).

 

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. *What happened to baptism? Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

 

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved through water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

 

You are projecting your dogma of baptismal regeneration onto the text rather than allowing the context to determine the meaning.
Since baptism is not even a discussion in this passage, your approach is eisegesis rather than exegesis.

 

Congratulations on misusing yet another text in scripture.
Rome still teaches the false doctrine of indulgences. It still holds to the false beliefs it declared at the council of Trent. It still attempts to cover up its sin and demand power rather than follow Christ.
I have listened to many an addict be remorseful without actually turning from their sin. Rome is addicted to power. It shows remorse. It never shows repentance.