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

[Reformed1689]

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

This is a deceptive post. I brought him up because it was said that all ECF held a unanimous viewpoint of the passage which was proven false.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

Do you agree context determines meaning? That is one point of a sound hermeneutic and to say this is talking about anything other than physical birth ignores context.

 

[Reformed1689]

If the water which Jesus refers to is amniotic fluid, then Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus’ suggestion that he climb back into his mother’s womb for a second birth.

How? That's nonsense. Jesus is acknowledging that is the way he was ALREADY BORN and he needs another birth, by spirit.

Because nowhere in Scripture or antiquity is being "born of water" synonymous with being born.

Context would argue otherwise.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

Nicodemus' question does not negate the fact that Jesus was talking about both physical birth and spiritual birth in order to address Nicodemus' incorrect theology.

 

[Reformed1689]

Time to put your LIES about St. John Chrysostom to rest.

He believed in the CATHOLIC position on Baptismal Regeneration and the CATHOLIC position on John 3:5 – as well as MANY other Biblical texts.

Here now is a LONG list of writings on the subject . . .

St. John Chrysostom (347-407), bishop of Constantinople, wrote a work titled “Instructions to Catechumens,” in which he writes:

But I see that our discourse now constrains us to something more necessary to say what baptism is, and for what reason it enters into our life, and what good things it conveys to us.

But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. “He saved us,” he says, “through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

It is called also, baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27

Hear therefore what follows: “And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God.” We promise to show you that they who approach the laver become clean from all fornication: but the word has shown more, that they have become not only clean, but both holy and just, for it does not say only “you were washed,” but also “you were sanctified and were justified.”

And for what reason, says one, if the laver take away all our sins, is it called, not a laver of remission of sins, nor a laver of cleansing, but a laver of regeneration? Because it does not simply take away our sins, nor simply cleanse us from our faults, but so as if we were born again.

God has taken and cast anew, and throwing it into the waters as into a mould, and instead of fire sending forth the grace of the Spirit, then brings us forth with much brightness, renewed, and made afresh, to rival the beams of the sun, having crushed the old man, and having fashioned a new man, more brilliant than the former.

In his Homily 24 on the Gospel of John, St. Chrysostom writes:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

. Now what He says, is something like this: “If you are not born again, if you partake not of the Spirit which is by the washing of Regeneration, you can not have a right opinion of Me, for the opinion which you have is not spiritual, but carnal.” (Titus 3:5) (Homily 24 on the Gospel of John)

In Baptismal Instruction (3:6) he writes:
Although many men think that the only gift [baptism] confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

In his Homily 12 on Matthew, St. Chrysostom writes:
For this baptism alone has the grace of the Spirit, but that of John was destitute of this gift. (Homily 12 on Matthew)

In his Homily 19 on Matthew, he writes:
Then forasmuch as it comes to pass that we sin even after the washing of regeneration, He, showing His love to man to be great even in this case, commands us for the remission of our sins to come unto God who loves man, and thus to say, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” (Homily 19 on Matthew)

Commenting on John 1:12, “As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God,” St. Chrysostom writes:
And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the “image of the earthy” (1 Corinthians 15:49), and producing “the image of the heavenly,” fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould. (Homily 10 on the Gospel of John)

Regarding the story of the pool at Bethsada in the fifth chapter of the gospel of John, St. Chrysostom writes:
A Baptism was about to be given, possessing much power, and the greatest of gifts, a Baptism purging all sins, and making men alive instead of dead.
And “an Angel came down and troubled the water,” and endued it with a healing power, that the Jews might learn that much more could the Lord of Angels heal the diseases of the soul. Yet as here it was not simply the nature of the water that healed, (for then this would have always taken place,) but water joined to the operation of the Angel; so in our case, it is not merely the water that works, but when it has received the grace of the Spirit, then it puts away all our sins. (Homily 36 on the Gospel of John)

In his Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles he writes:
But why does Christ say, “You shall be baptized,” when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation. (Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles)

In his Homily 40 on the Acts of the Apostles he writes:
We have the sum and substance of the good things: through baptism we received remission of sins, sanctification, participation of the Spirit, adoption, eternal life. What would ye more? (Homily 40 on the Acts of the Apostles)

YOUR problem is that you LIE and you TWIST and PERVERT the truth to make your points.

As I have stated repeatedly – the UNANIMOUS teachings of the Early Church on John 3:5 were that it was about BAPTISM . . .

We aren't talking about the doctrine of Regeneraational Baptism. We are talking about the false claim you made that all ECF said John 3:5 was about water baptism. I gave you TWO DIRECT QUOTES from two different ECF that state otherwise.

 

[Reformed1689]

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

This is where you fail. WE ARE starting with Nicodemus question. He thinks he must have a physical rebirth. Jesus is telling him, you already had a physical birth (water) but your rebirth must be of the spirit.

If the water was the second birth, the rebirth, then that would make the birth of the spirit a third birth. So according to your point, it necessitates that we are not born again once, but twice.

 

[Walpole]

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" . . .

I am starting to think Protestants view the Scriptures as the most complete set of coincidences ever recorded.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am starting to think Protestants view the Scriptures as the most complete set of coincidences ever recorded.

Because that is what you want to think. Its what is in your heart.

 

[MarysSon]

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

And all that means is that more than one person here is WRONG and doesn’t understand implicit Scriptural teaching.

Eisegesis is what YOU guys are doing – injecting YOUR Protestant doctrines on well-established Biblical and Christian norms.

 

[MarysSon]

I am starting to think Protestants view the Scriptures as the most complete set of coincidences ever recorded.

Agreed.

 

[Revmitchell]

Agreed.

Of course you do. You also decided to show up on a baptist web site and bash baptists. Does nothing for your credibility

 

[Particular]

And all that means is that more than one person here is WRONG and doesn’t understand implicit Scriptural teaching.

Eisegesis is what YOU guys are doing – injecting YOUR Protestant doctrines on well-established Biblical and Christian norms.

LOL, no. We look at the text and see what it says, not what we want it to say.
Since baptism is never mentioned or considered by either Nicodemus or by Jesus, we do not jump to baptism as the meaning of water in verse 5.
Your approach is similar to someone reading the word "oxygen" and immediately declaring the author is speaking about methane.

 

[MarysSon]

Of course you do. You also decided to show up on a baptist web site and bash baptists. Does nothing for your credibility

I’m not here to “bash” Baptists or anybody else.

I’m here to expose lies about the Catholic Church and defend the truth of the Catholic position.
That’s all.

 

[Reformed1689]

And all that means is that more than one person here is WRONG and doesn’t understand implicit Scriptural teaching.

Eisegesis is what YOU guys are doing – injecting YOUR Protestant doctrines on well-established Biblical and Christian norms.

This post makes me think you don't even know what Eisegesis is....

 

[Revmitchell]

I’m not here to “bash” Baptists or anybody else.

.

And yet you do

 

[Reformed1689]

I’m not here to “bash” Baptists or anybody else.

I’m here to expose lies about the Catholic Church and defend the truth of the Catholic position.
That’s all.

Name one lie that has been given about the Catholic Church... Also, you can't defend the truth of something that isn't true to begin with.

 

[MarysSon]

This post makes me think you don't even know what Eisegesis is....

Sure I do.

It’s when you inject your own agenda into what Scripture is teaching instead of gleaning what Scripture is clearly teaching, whether it’s explicit or implicit.

This is precisely what Protestantism at large has done with John 3:5 because unless you DO – you must agree with the Catholic position, which is unthinkable . . .

 

[Reformed1689]

This is precisely what Protestantism at large has done with John 3:5 because unless you DO – you must agree with the Catholic position, which is unthinkable . . .

No. Not true. I knew exactly what John 3:5 was talking about before I had ever heard the Catholic position. There is nothing in that passage that signals water baptism in any way shape or form unless you come at it looking for that with a preconceived idea that it must be talking about that because Baptism is what regenerates.

But, I ask again, how many times do you have to be born again? Once or twice?

 

[MarysSon]

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).

Verse 6 simply emphasizes Christ’s point in verse 5 – that He is NOT talking about physical birth. That He is talking about spiritual REBIRTH.

Nicodemus asked Him to explain how a man could be “reborn” and even stated that a man could not re-enter his mother’s womb. Jesus answered him by telling him that he needed to be reborn of water and SPIRIT – not flesh.

This is done in BAPTISM, as Scripture tells us again and again and again (Ezek. 36:25-27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Col. 2:9-12, Pet. 3:21).

 

[Reformed1689]

Verse 6 simply emphasizes Christ’s point in verse 5 – that He is NOT talking about physical birth. That He is talking about spiritual REBIRTH.

Please exegete the passage to show how this is talking about spiritual birth with water. Show us the work. Don't just regurgitate Catholic dogma. Show us how you arrive at that conclusion.

Jesus answered him by telling him that he needed to be reborn of water and SPIRIT – not flesh.

So is this one or two rebirths? Because this is talking about two different types of births. You have to be born of water. But you also have to be REBORN of spirit. Water is flesh which Jesus explains in verse 6. You need to show exegetical work to prove your point and that cannot include Catholic commentary or dogma.

And I have a question for you. Was the thief on the cross beside Christ saved?