On Baptism...

Actually you are wrong:

Clearly, the church fathers thought this was physical birth as well, which is also the plain reading of the passage. If you are going to make such a bold claim at least give citations and know the source material.

I also don't know of any leading Greek Scholar that agrees with you.

 

Here is my take.

James 2:21-24 talks of Abraham being saved by his faith in the gospel. But it says that works is an indicator of faith, not of salvation. Abraham was saved (made righteous) for his faith alone, and his works demonstrated his faith was genuine. Therefore, works do not act as an activator of salvation, but as a litmus test of faith.

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.​

So then, works are a validation that one has genuine faith, but it is faith and faith alone which makes us righteous. I think of it this way; if a car is speeding towards me and I tell everyone I'm not afraid and I believe the car is not going to hit me, but then at the last moment, I dive out of the way of the car, my actions will have demonstrated by true belief. In my heart I really did think the car was going to hit me. Similarly, faith if it is not accompanied by corresponding action can be shown to not be a genuine faith. Not that works saves us... only faith can do that... but rather than works demonstrates genuine faith.

Now pay close attention as to WHEN Paul says Abraham was made righteous for his faith;

Rom 4:9-13 NASB 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.​

According to Paul, Abraham was saved (or made righteous for his faith) BEFORE he was circumcised. Before he took any physical action. But you have to realize -- The story James 2:21-24 talks about - the offering of Isaac - happened more than a decade AFTER Abraham was circumcised. This means that Abraham had already been righteous for his faith for more than a decade when God tested his faith.

Since Abraham is the archetype of salvation by faith, we have to look at his example. For the scripture says that salvation comes by having the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had. Abraham was never baptized. However, at the inception of the covenant of faith God makes with him (Gen 12-17), God ratifies His covenant with Abraham in the way covenants are ratified - He has Abraham split a bunch of animals in half, then God Himself passes TWICE through the blood (once for God's side of the covenant, and once for Abraham's side of the contestant). God ratifies the covenant of righteousness by faith in Genesis 15 - prior to ANY ordinances of The Law or of baptism.

Gal 3:6-9 NASB 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.​

Gal 3:14-18 NASB 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
​

So once God ratifies the covenant of faith with Abraham in Genesis 15, no further conditions can be added to that covenant. Therefore, baptism is not a condition of salvation. The role of baptism is a demonstration that one's faith is genuine. As James says, faith alone saves, but works perfect (or demonstrate as valid) one's faith.

 

FYI, he’s on a six month furlough.

 

In your conversations with these folks, are they of any specific denomination or sect? Their interpretation of the need for Baptism as necessary for Salvation is clearly flawed (actually, wrong). Baptism is the outward showing and public confession of a person's decision to admit one's sins, repent, receive the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus and the Spirit and then to allow The Holy Spirit to change that person. Salvation has already been received (achieved - ?). A young child can understand all of this....so, why do you waste your time with them? If they are discussing this with you for interpretation, understanding and guidance, then I personally think this is good for you to share. If they are trying to foist another "alien" bit of heresy and not interested in the truth of scripture, then send them a pack of Q-Tips to clean out their "itching ears". (Dennis, a life-long Baptist now worshiping in a Missionary and Alliance Church)

 

I look at it as an opportunity to proclaim the truth and to also sharpen my skills of presenting truth and arguments for the truth.

 

No, I am not wrong. If you had read Chrysotom about five paragraphs beyond where you quoted, you would have found this:

"That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10:47

What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, We are buried with Him by Baptism into death: and again, Our old man is crucified with Him: and again, We have been planted together in the likeness of His death. Romans 6:4-6 And not only is Baptism called a cross, but the cross is called Baptism. With the Baptism, says Christ, that I am baptized withal shall you be baptized Mark 10:39: and, I have a Baptism to be baptized with Luke 12:50 (which you know not); for as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed or rather much more easily, though He tarried the three days for the dispensation of a certain mystery."

I have read quite a bit on this and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysotom, Gregory of Nazianz, and Augustine all expressed the view that John 3:5 refers to water baptism.

 

I don't know what you call a scholar, but to me it is anyone who has had a single course in Greek which I have not. Here is what Thomas Constable of Dallas Theological Seminary says about this:

"Another view proposed by many scholars is that "water" is an allusion to the amniotic fluid in which a fetus develops in its mother's womb. Other scholars see it as a euphemistic reference to the semen, without which natural birth is impossible. In either case, "water" refers to physical or natural birth, while "spirit" refers to spiritual or supernatural birth.[232] These proponents claim that Jesus was saying that natural birth is not enough—that one must also experience supernatural birth to enter the kingdom. However, this use of "water" is unique in Scripture. This view also assumes that two births are in view, whereas the construction of the Greek phrase favors one birth rather than two. If two were in view, there would normally be a repetition of the preposition before the second noun."

He gives a very detailed analysis of the various theories pertaining to "water and the spirit" in his commentary which you can find here. John

Although I don't have access right now, I believe the "John" volume of The New American Commentary, published by Broadman, comes to the same conclusion concerning physical birth.

 

Baptism does not save, but it is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who have trusted in Him should be baptized.
Matthew 28:19. 'Go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them......'
John 4:1. '......Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.'
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received His words were baptized....'
Acts 8:12. 'But when they believed Philip as he preached.......both men and women [no children] were baptized.'
And so forth (Acts 10:47 etc.).
Baptism is an ordinance for those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and become disciples. It is not given in order to save, but to those who are saved. It is not therefore an optional extra, but nor is it for those who are too young to understand the Gospel.

 

Those who would hold to be being required for salvation hold to a defective Gospel in some regards!

 

Your response shows you aren't very read up on them at all. You cherry picked something 5 PARAGRAPHS LATER that is no longer speaking on the same. If you read the five paragraphs between my quoted text and yours you would know you are wrong on the issue. It is talking about physical birth.

 

I don't think that John 3:5 refers to baptism for the following reasons:
1. John 3:5 is very definite; it allows for no exceptions. Therefore the thief on the cross is lost, as are all without exception in denominations, like the Quakers and the salvation Army that do not practise water baptism.
2. Nowhere else in the Bible is regeneration linked to water baptism. James 1:18 & 1 Peter 1:21 both link the new birth to the word of God.
3. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, a strange thing to say if baptism is so very necessary for salvation.
4. I cannot believe that our Lord would be reinforcing what is the chief error of Pharisaism; the idea that outward purification can bring about inward cleansing. As we can see in Mark 7:2-4, Pharisees like Nicodemus spent all their time in ritual washings and cleansings. Is it really likely that the Lord Jesus would be saying to him, “What you need, Nicodemus, more than anything else, is another ritual washing”? If that was our Lord’s meaning, then why was Nicodemus so dumbfounded by it? More ceremonial, outward cleansings would have been right up his street, water off a duck’s back in more ways than one! No, Nicodemus’ problem was not on the outside but the inside. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness” Mark 7:21f). Can an external washing purify a man from inward sin and depravity? Of course not! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also' (Matthew 23:25-26)
5. The Lord Jesus says, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," not "That which is born of waterandspirit is spirit."

But nor do I believe that 'water and Spirit' refer to regular human birth, amniotic fluid etc, as some have suggested.
So what does it mean?

I think the solution lies in the O.T. In John 3, Nicodemus shows himself to be utterly confused by the concept of the New Birth. "How can these things be?" He asks (v.9). "I don't know what you're talking about, Jesus!" So our Lord chides him a little: "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" What He's saying is that if Nicodemus was such a great teacher of the Torah etc, he would know what the Lord Jesus meant. Therefore there must be a reference in the O.T. which would have enabled Nicodemus to understand the concept of 'water and Spirit.' In fact, there are two:

Psalms 51:6-10 is helpful. 'Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts' (v.6). Dipping in water, or splashing it over someone cannot affect his inmost being. 'Purge [or 'wash'] me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow' (v.7). Hyssop is the sprig of a plant and at the Exodus it was used to apply the blood of the Passover lamb to the door lintel (Exodus 12:22). So to be washed with hyssop is to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. 'Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast Spirit within me' (V.10). The other side of the New Birth is a renewal of heart and Spirit for future obedience.

The same teaching is found in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Can an outward administration of water cleanse from spiritual filthiness and idolatry? Of course not! We need a cleansing that works from within. So what is the nature of the New Birth? It is a birth of Water and Spirit; the washing away of indwelling sin and corruption, and renewal by God, the Holy Spirit.

 

.

The use of water as an analogy for amniotic fluid doesn’t occur in Jewish writings of the first century. Ever! As an idiom, it didn’t exist in Jesus’ time and culture.

No early Christian writer interpreted the passage as reference to anything other than baptism.

 

We have already disproven this idea by careful exegesis of the passage.

 

We as in the members of the discussion. That is a standard phraseology.

 

You can call a duck a chicken, a monkey or an automobile but it’s still a duck. You can call being born of water natural birth all day long but it is still baptism. And despite your pleas to the contrary, John Chrysotom never intimated anything else. I did read the five paragraphs between your quoted text and mine. Judging by your picture, I probably read them for the first time long before you finished high school. Anyway, I just read them again and they absolutely, unequivocally assert that being born of water is not natural childbirth. For example,

I have come to bring a new manner of Creation. I formed (man) of earth and water; but that which was formed was unprofitable, the vessel was wrenched awry; I will no more form them of earth and water, but 'of water' and 'of the Spirit.'

I stand by my original assertion that 100% of the early Christian writers hold that John 3:5 is referring to Christian baptism. That is a fact and you can deny it all day long but denying it doesn’t change what it is. I realize this is difficult for you because it works great mischief to your soteriology but that doesn’t alter its truth.

 

I have already proven from Scripture otherwise.

Again, I have quoted him to say otherwise.

And so since you can't actually refute what I have said you resort to ad hominem. By the way, that picture is about 10 years old, not that my age actually matters to the conversation.