Is Baptism required for Salvation?

[Brother Bob]

If baptism were required for salvation then the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation and Christ did not fully atone for our sins. We had to pay part of the price ourselves through the work of baptism, and as Eph.2:8,9 points out "lest any man should boast," there will be boasting in heaven about how we earned our salvation.
DHK

The Holy Ghost baptism is that blood. The water baptism is just to answer a good conscious toward God, not the putting away the filth of the flesh.

 

[mojoala]

This was the example for the Gentile nation

Acts, chapter 10
"43": To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

"44": While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

"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.

"46": For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

"47": Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Just exactly where does it say they were "Baptized by the Holy Ghost"? It says they received the Holy Ghost. It does not say they were Baptized by the Holy Ghost. Now somebody wanted some water so they could be BAPTIZED WITH WATER after recieving the Holy Ghost.

Nice try Brother Bob, but you failed again.

 

[rbell]

My Rendering? I am just quoting what has been translated from Greek to English;

Douay Rheims:
Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.

King James Version:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Bible in Basic English:
So then, let your hearts be changed and be turned to God, so that your sins may be completely taken away, and times of blessing may come from the Lord;

Youngs Literal translation:
reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Spanish:
Así que, arrepentíos y convertíos, para que sean borrados vuestros pecados; pues que vendrán los tiempos del refrigerio de la presencia del Señor,

UNLESS OF COURSE YOU WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THE BIBLES THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN INTERPRETED INTO THE PROPER CONTEXT OF ENGLISH? THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY WE DON'T POSSESS THE RIGHTFUL WORD OF GOD. THEREFORE WHAT WE HAVE IS A WORK OF SATAN. CORRUPT AND FOUL.

Point is, "may" here does not carry an idea of conditional fulfillment..."may" doesn't mean "possibly" here...it's a done deal. The Greek sense here is very clear. And our use of "may" can change over several hundred years.

I was just pointing out the need to be consistent in not forcing a reading the Bible doesn't give us.

And your caps lock seems to have stuck on you mojo...you might want to have that fixed...I use several faithful translations of scripture...and none of them are of Satan. Let's avoid attacking versions.

 

[Lagardo]

I think its safe to say that there are those here on this board that intend only to create arguments over their extrabiblical theology. In the interest in what is biblical and Christ-like, I say we all do our best to avoid such devisive pursuits.

 

[carpro]

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Break it down brother bob:

19 Repent (change the way you think)
ye therefore,
and be converted (if you have succeeded in changing your way of think, then your'e mind is converted),
that your sins may( keyword is may. It is not a will or a shall)

I'm sorry, but I have to resist the temption to laugh over such parsing of words.

That is the same as saying "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish" is not definite.

If "Should" means maybe, maybe not like "may" in Acts 3:19 means might or might not, then we have lost the bedrock verse of our beliefs.

 

[Darron Steele]

Does the Thief on the Cross Teach Baptism not essential?

People who believe in salvation by "faith only" often claim that the thief on the cross proves that baptism is not necessary to receive the forgiveness of sins. Was the thief saved under the gospel of Jesus Christ? Does the Bible teach that people today can be forgiven by faith alone without being baptized?
...
Consider Jesus' statement about the thief. Does it mean we can be saved by faith alone without baptism?

1. The thief is also not an example of salvation by faith under the gospel.
Those who argue for salvation by "faith only" cannot use the thief to defend their position either, for he did not have the kind of faith that is required for salvation today.
...
3. The thief was saved while the Old Testament was still in effect. He is not an example of salvation under the gospel at all.
The truth is that the thief was saved under a different law and dispensation than we are under.

I am in disagreement. Here is why.

At Luke 22:50 we read Jesus saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (ASV). Here, Jesus institutes a New Covenant that is to be based upon His blood. Starting at Hebrews 7:22b we see “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (NASB) and the train of thought continues to Hebrews 8:6-7: “But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second” (ASV). The New Testament acknowledges between Judaism and Christianity only two covenants: an Old Covenant and a “second covenant” = “New Covenant” based upon Jesus Christ.

At Matthew 27:50-1a we read “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom” (TNIV). The temple curtain separated the rest of the temple from the innermost part of the temple, which had the presence of God and could only be entered by one certain priest on stringent conditions. When that temple curtain tore, that signified the end of the Old Covenant; God ripped that barrier apart Himself from Heaven’s direction down. This is important, because it says much about the relevance of one of the first people saved under the New Covenant.

Originally, he was a party to mocking the Lord Jesus on the cross per Matthew 27:44 “And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way” (ESV). The end of the thief’s account is as follows from Luke 23:41-3 starting with his words “`And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he was saying, `Jesus, remember me when You come into Your Kingdom!’ And He said to him, `Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise’” (NASB) -- the majority of the oldest manuscripts do not have "Lord" here. Although this thief was originally antagonistic to Jesus, upon this thief’s repentance, Jesus assured the man of being in the same place as righteous Jesus Himself after death!

When we turn over to the continuation of the crucifixion after Jesus’ death, we find out that after Jesus had died, those hung on crosses next to Him remained alive:
----at John 19:30 Jesus dies
----at John 19:31 the Jewish leaders asked that those on the crosses would have their legs broken to speed up their deaths so that the crosses would be vacant the next day, and
----at John 19:32 both of Jesus’ neighbors had their legs broken.
Now remember, at the very moment of Jesus’ death, the Old Covenant was literally ripped from top to bottom, but the penitent thief was still alive. The penitent thief, however, was promised a place with righteous Jesus by Jesus Himself. Hence, when the penitent thief died, he was not saved by anything other than the New Covenant that all Christians are saved under.

This instance is very important to understanding how we are saved. Romans 4:5 states “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (ESV). The penitent thief had no opportunity to do anything to confirm his faith. While Romans 10:9 requires willingness to confess Jesus as Lord, Luke 23:41-3 as originally written1 shows not even this action -- the thief recognized Jesus’ authority over a kingdom, so no doubt would have confessed Him as Lord. The only recorded things the thief did here was show realization that his sins deserved punishment and call on Jesus to treat him with mercy -- and Jesus gave him salvation.

The thief was an exteme example of salvation by faith. No doubt, the thief would have gladly been baptized, or directly called Jesus "Lord" before a congregation of people. However, these opportunities did not exist, but because of a faith that would have, he was saved anyway.

 

[Darron Steele]

I hear people say all the time that we are saved by grace not by works and i agree and they say that baptism is a work, but if baptism is a work then you would have to go on and say that repenting is a work and belief is a work, because you are doing something in order to recieve salvation.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

I believe that repentance would follow from belief that Jesus Christ is Who He and the Bible say He is. If Jesus Christ came to save sinners from their guilt, and we believe He was needed, it follows that we acknowledge our guilt. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is in agreement with the Father, that means He is not pleased by our guilt. If we believe that He is Lord, we need to turn from those sins and repent. Repentance is a choice to turn away from sin and start being obedient in attitude to the Lord and simultaneously follows from faith.

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

If baptism were required for salvation then the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation and Christ did not fully atone for our sins. We had to pay part of the price ourselves through the work of baptism, and as Eph.2:8,9 points out "lest any man should boast," there will be boasting in heaven about how we earned our salvation.
DHK

if repenting and confessing and believing were required for salvation then the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation and Christ did not fully atone for our sins. We had to pay part of the price ourselves throught the works of repenting, confessing ,and believing,and as Eph.2:8,9 points out "lest any man should boast," there will be boasting in heaven about how we earned our salvation.

this is where your logic fails.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

I am in disagreement. Here is why.

At Luke 22:50 we read Jesus saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (ASV). Here, Jesus institutes a New Covenant that is to be based upon His blood. Starting at Hebrews 7:22b we see “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (NASB) and the train of thought continues to Hebrews 8:6-7: “But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second” (ASV). The New Testament acknowledges between Judaism and Christianity only two covenants: an Old Covenant and a “second covenant” = “New Covenant” based upon Jesus Christ.

At Matthew 27:50-1a we read “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom” (TNIV). The temple curtain separated the rest of the temple from the innermost part of the temple, which had the presence of God and could only be entered by one certain priest on stringent conditions. When that temple curtain tore, that signified the end of the Old Covenant; God ripped that barrier apart Himself from Heaven’s direction down. This is important, because it says much about the relevance of one of the first people saved under the New Covenant.

Originally, he was a party to mocking the Lord Jesus on the cross per Matthew 27:44 “And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way” (ESV). The end of the thief’s account is as follows from Luke 23:41-3 starting with his words “`And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he was saying, `Jesus, remember me when You come into Your Kingdom!’ And He said to him, `Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise’” (NASB) -- the majority of the oldest manuscripts do not have "Lord" here. Although this thief was originally antagonistic to Jesus, upon this thief’s repentance, Jesus assured the man of being in the same place as righteous Jesus Himself after death!

When we turn over to the continuation of the crucifixion after Jesus’ death, we find out that after Jesus had died, those hung on crosses next to Him remained alive:
----at John 19:30 Jesus dies
----at John 19:31 the Jewish leaders asked that those on the crosses would have their legs broken to speed up their deaths so that the crosses would be vacant the next day, and
----at John 19:32 both of Jesus’ neighbors had their legs broken.
Now remember, at the very moment of Jesus’ death, the Old Covenant was literally ripped from top to bottom, but the penitent thief was still alive. The penitent thief, however, was promised a place with righteous Jesus by Jesus Himself. Hence, when the penitent thief died, he was not saved by anything other than the New Covenant that all Christians are saved under.

This instance is very important to understanding how we are saved. Romans 4:5 states “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (ESV). The penitent thief had no opportunity to do anything to confirm his faith. While Romans 10:9 requires willingness to confess Jesus as Lord, Luke 23:41-3 as originally written1 shows not even this action -- the thief recognized Jesus’ authority over a kingdom, so no doubt would have confessed Him as Lord. The only recorded things the thief did here was show realization that his sins deserved punishment and call on Jesus to treat him with mercy -- and Jesus gave him salvation.

The thief was an exteme example of salvation by faith. No doubt, the thief would have gladly been baptized, or directly called Jesus "Lord" before a congregation of people. However, these opportunities did not exist, but because of a faith that would have, he was saved anyway.

okay so we know that the new covanent was after christ's death( Hebrews 9:16-17) for where there is a testament there must also of necessity be the death of a testator. for a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

we see that the theif was saved when? when christ was alive, that means he was saved under the old covanent. And we see that christ had the power to forgive sins on earth. (Matt. 9:6) so while christ was on earth he could forgive anyone he wanted to, but now that he is gone we have to obey his will in order to recieve salvation.(Matt. 7:21)

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

and don't you think it is interesting that we can't be in Christ's Body(the church) if we are not baptized.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[Brother Bob]

Just exactly where does it say they were "Baptized by the Holy Ghost"? It says they received the Holy Ghost. It does not say they were Baptized by the Holy Ghost. Now somebody wanted some water so they could be BAPTIZED WITH WATER after recieving the Holy Ghost.

Nice try Brother Bob, but you failed again.

Matthew, chapter 3

"11": I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Only place I ever read where the Holy Ghost baptism comes from. It is not me trying it is God who did it.

 

[Darron Steele]

okay so we know that the new covanent was after christ's death( Hebrews 9:16-17) for where there is a testament there must also of necessity be the death of a testator. for a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

we see that the theif was saved when? when christ was alive, that means he was saved under the old covanent. And we see that christ had the power to forgive sins on earth. (Matt. 9:6) so while christ was on earth he could forgive anyone he wanted to, but now that he is gone we have to obey his will in order to recieve salvation.(Matt. 7:21)

In Christian Love,

Dustin

Well, the thing is, Jesus knew when the penitent thief would die. He knew that the penitent thief would die after He did. Hence, after Jesus died, the penitent thief died under the New Covenant. Jesus said the penitent was going to be going to the same place He is after the penitent thief died, and because the thief died after Jesus, He died under the New Covenant.

My point about how the thief got saved under the New Covenant by faith without doing a single thing -- although he would have with opportunity because of that faith -- stands.

 

[MorganT]

So, you only want people on this board that agree with you? People shouldn't start new threads based on their belief system? What if they agree with what you already believe? Not much debate.


No I would just like people to believe the TRUTH and not some fairytale

Furthermore, your agrument against baptism is without substance
.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned".


Watch this I can pull a verse out of the bible to make my argument however if you take the bible as a whole and not just what verses you want you would see that the bible says that you are saved by faith and not of baptizm
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


Let me ask you a question. Did Jesus mean what He said, or did He mean something else?


Yes he meant every word but in context not twisted like you are trying to do.

As far as the argument you listed from 1st Corinthians, lets dig a little deeper.

Were the Corinthians baptized? Let's read Acts 18:8, "And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized."

Did Paul baptize any of them? Yes, a few.

Why only a few if that is what it takes to be saved why not all.


Is there any indication that any of the believers were NOT baptized? NONE!!!!

Is there any that they were not now who is adding to the bible YOU there is no indication that they were

They were baptized, but Paul didn't do very much of the baptizing and he was glad. Why? Because Paul and the Corinthians understood the importance of baptism. In order to belong to Christ, He would have to die for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. In order for you to belong to Paul, he would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in his name.

Um who is adding to the bible now maybe what you think

Let's read it in context.

I Cor 1:12-17 "What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

The word “baptize” here denotes “to administer the rite” of baptism (J.H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 94).

Paul was glad that he had not administered the rite of baptism so that no one may say that they were baptized in his name.

Note, Paul did not say that he was glad that they were not baptized, because that had all been baptized. That alone defeats your entire argument.

Only in your eyes because you have twisted the bible so much you dont even know the truth.

Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel which he did as seen in Acts 18:8. The people who believed his message were baptized, therefore his gospel message contained instructions for baptism.

Um they had to repent which in order to do that they had to have FAITH

We obey the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15) in baptism according to Rom 6:3-4, 17.

If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message" why were they baptized at the preaching of it?

Im not saying your not supose to be bapized I said the act of bapizm dosent save you.

 

[Darron Steele]

If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message" why were they baptized at the preaching of it?

Im not saying your not supose to be bapized I said the act of bapizm dosent save you.

Many Christians earnestly desire to serve the Lord from the core of their hearts and do not need compulsion. They cannot wait to get busy with their Christian lives and be baptized because they want to start serving the Lord.

Mman: the above is one thing that bothers me about the implication about `Why were they baptized if it did not save them?'

I see it raising two important questions: Do you do anything to obey the Lord for any other reason than to avoid eternal barbecue? Do you do anything for the Lord because you earnestly desire to?

I am not being mean, but that is honestly what I see when I read these types of things from you and from others.

 

[mojoala]

Matthew, chapter 3

"11": I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Only place I ever read where the Holy Ghost baptism comes from. It is not me trying it is God who did it.

This is a prophetic promise. But nowhere in the Gospels does it show Jesus actually fulfilling this prophechy. So where is the scripture that shows Jesus actually baptizing with the Holy Spirit? Some say John 3:22.

Now lets fastforward to John 3 verses 22 and 23

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

No proof that Jesus was baptizing with the Holy Spirit. And since we have the imperative and in the following verse, we see that John was Baptizing people as well.

23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

If Jesus was baptizing with the Holy Spirit (which it does not obviously say) then we have to conclude with the imperative AND that John was also baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Since that is not plausible, then Jesus is baptizing with Water and not the Holy Spirit.

he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

This falls more into the line of 1 Cor 3:10 which states:

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

This Baptism of the Holy Spirit will occur after we have died and will be undergo the trial by fire. God will envelope you with the Holy Spirit and his Fire. God will burn away those things that made you imperfect in the eyes of god which are the wood, hay, stubble. And after this trial by fire if your Christian house contained gold, silver, precious stones then you will be saved and have eternal life.

Paul was given a prophetic vision of what is going to happen to a person when they die or at least what is going happen on "The Day".

This does not negate Jesus' redemptiive work on the Cross. Jesus' redemptive work only forgives us of our sins. His redemptive work does not make us perfect. His redemptive work does not remove our bad attitudes and other little vices that are not neccesarily considered a sin.

I have a very large list of those things that make us imperfect so we cannot enter heaven without undergoing the trying by fire.

If you want to see the list, then start a new thread entitled "Wood, Hay, and Stubble" and I will gladly oblidge you.

God bless and go live the Gospel!

 

[mojoala]

Im not saying your not supose to be bapized I said the act of bapizm dosent save you

Peter says Baptism does save you.

Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

 

[Darron Steele]

Peter says Baptism does save you.

Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

Well, 1 Peter 3:20 ends with water. 1 Peter 3:21 describes water baptism.

Many people like to stop after the first part of the verse, and you misquoted the passage -- here, let me put in emphasis what you left out:
“which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism| (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, |but an appeal to God for a good conscience|,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (ASV|KJV|NASB|KJV).
As you can see, what you left out is relevant. You can check the NASB of this verse at www.biblegateway.com to verify that you did indeed leave something off.

When we get into water, it usually washes whatever dirt we have on our bodies off. This seems to be the most natural understanding -- Peter was clarifying that getting in the water does NOT save us. What does save us? Our "appeal to God for a good conscience" meaning a realization of our guilt and a desire for God to cleanse us; this is repentance, and it gets us into the water, and this is what saves us.

 

[Brother Bob]

This Baptism of the Holy Spirit will occur after we have died and will be undergo the trial by fire. God will envelope you with the Holy Spirit and his Fire. God will burn away those things that made you imperfect in the eyes of god which are the wood, hay, stubble. And after this trial by fire if your Christian house contained gold, silver, precious stones then you will be saved and have eternal life.

I think you do err. The baptism happened when Jesus died on the cross.

KJMatt.20

"22": But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

"23": And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

We couldn't receive the Holy Ghost Baptism until Jesus died and that is why they were only baptized with the water unto repentance but when Jesus died they were told to tarry in Jerusalem until they had been endured with the power on High. The Holy Ghost Baptism.
After Jesus died and the Day of Pentecost then it changed to we receive the Holy Ghost Baptism first and then the water baptism, as in the case of Corneilus. peace

If you do not believe you have the Holy Ghost now then I say you are missing out on a great part of Salvation. blessings,

 

[Eric B]

Born again in verse 3 equals born of water and of the Spirit of verse 5

Nicodemus was just like you in thinking that "born of water = natural birth of flesh " so he asks a question.

If Jesus actually meant born of water = natural birth of flesh Jesus would have affirmed this to Nicodemus and would have said so, but we that is not the case, instead renders one of his "VERILY VERILY" puts him straight. So Jesus is not talking about about natural birth of flesh, he is talking about the baptism of water that he underwent earlier.

Of the 4 verses Jesus makes 3 distinctions of "BORN OF"

born of water (verse 5)
born of spirit (verse 5 and 6)
born of flesh (verse 6 )

born of water does not equal born of flesh because he places a severe distinction between flesh and spirit in verse 6 to make Nicodemus unstand that he is not talking about being born again from the womb.

God bless and go live the Gospel.

That is a parallel. "Flesh" parallels "water", showing that "born of water" means born of the Flesh. I used to believe like you, until I noticed this parallel. The distinction is between flesh and spirit, but then it is also between water and spirit; but never between flesh and water! They are the same, here.

Why would Jesus even say it if it meant natural birth? When is being born ever used as a condition for something? "You must be born a natural birth and have a SAT score of 1200 or better to get into Podunk U." "You must be born a natural birth and be over 48 inches tall to go on the Screeming Mimi ride." I mean, who in the audience is going to hear "you must be born a natural birth and born of the spirit" and think "darn, I wasn't born a natural birth! I better go take care of that now"?

That understanding just doesn't make any sense.

What He is saying is the same point illustrated throughout the rest of the NT. The Israelites back then thought they were saved by their physical heritage: hance, their birth by "water". So v.3 He says "born again" (He does not mention "water" at this point). Nicodemus thinks this means "going back into the womb" in v.4. THEN Jesus explains in v.5 "born of water and the spirit". Born of water is the first birth, and born of the spirit is to be born AGAIN. The point is not a command to be born the first time, and then be born the second time in order to be saved. It is assumed that if we are talking about a real person who is alive and needs to be saved; he was already born of water. The point is, that that is not enough, but he must also be born of the spirit. Even if you look at your above examples, they are true, aren't they? Only this redundancy is made because it is a literary parallel, between the two types of births; while your ewxamples have nothing to do with a birth, so the first birth would never be paralleled with them.

That said, the new birth, by which a person passes from death to life is a spiritual transaction, and thus not a physical act like baptism. So the baptism that saves, or the true spirit baptism being discussed now is ilustrated in 1 Cor.12:13 "By one spirit are we baptized INTNE BODY". THAT is the "baptism" that saves, and the water baptism is a symbol of it, that was supposed to mark the initial act of receiving life, but because of the change of the Church over the centuries, it occurs later.

 

[DHK]

The Holy Ghost baptism is that blood. The water baptism is just to answer a good conscious toward God, not the putting away the filth of the flesh.

I was not speaking of Holy Ghost baptism. That should have been clear from my post. Baptism (water) is a work. We are not saved by works. For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works. That means not of baptism. If baptism is required for salvation, then we are not saved by the grace of God. Tht is plain to see.
DHK