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

[Revmitchell]

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

Sure there is.......it had the word water in it.

 

[Reformed1689]

I debunked that by showing homily after homily where he retains the CATHOLIC position.

Yet you can't argue that the statement I showed was that in this verse he understands it is an earthly birth. I gave a DIRECT QUOTE.

I’ve also had to contend with the usual anti-Catholic nonsense from @Particular who accused me of belonging to a Church that “follows the Devil” . . .

Well it definitely doesn't follow Scripture. It follows tradition and man-made doctrine.

 

[Reformed1689]

Sure there is.......it had the word water in it.

Oh yeah, true. I guess Genesis 1 was talking about Baptism too.

 

[Revmitchell]

Verse 6 simply emphasizes Christ’s point in verse 5

Exactly, that which is flesh (physical birth) that which is spirit (reborn i.e. spiritual birth)

 

[Reformed1689]

YOU lied about St. John Chrysostom’s views on Baptism.

Bearing false witness again I see. I did not lie about anything. All I did was give a DIRECT QUOTE.

I'm sorry if you don't like proof. I'm sorry if the ECF sometimes contradicted themselves. That's why they aren't Scripture.

 

[MarysSon]

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.


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?

I have already exegeted John 3:5. I presented the entire conversation with Nicodemus and showed that Jesus was answering him according to his question – and his fleshly point of view.

And we’ve already discussed the Thief on the cross. He is the exception.

Here’s a little advice for you: NEVER base your doctrines on the exception. Baptism is the NORM – but he was unable to do it – not unwilling.

Rom. 10:9 states that we must “confess with our mouth” that Christ is Lord in order to be saved.
What if you are a mute? What if you have no tongue?

Your literalism tries to put limits on God’s mercy.

 

[MarysSon]

Bearing false witness again I see. I did not lie about anything. All I did was give a DIRECT QUOTE.

I'm sorry if you don't like proof. I'm sorry if the ECF sometimes contradicted themselves. That's why they aren't Scripture.

There was no contradiction - just YOUR contextual acrobatics.

 

[MarysSon]

Exactly, that which is flesh (physical birth) that which is spirit (reborn i.e. spiritual birth)

The conversation went like this - in modern laymen’s English:

Nicodemus: How does a guy get born again? Does he go back inside his mother?

Jesus: Unless you are born of water and spirit you can’t be saved. Flesh is physical birth. I’m talking about SPIRITUAL birth.


YOU would have us believe that the conversation went like THIS:
Nicodemus: How does a guy get born again? Does he go back inside his mother?

Jesus: Unless you are physically born, you can’t be saved. Flesh is physical birth. I’m talking about SPIRITUAL birth

This second scenario makes absolutely NO sense.

 

[Revmitchell]

YOU would have us believe that the conversation went like THIS:
Nicodemus: How does a guy get born again? Does he go back inside his mother?

Jesus: Unless you are physically born, you can’t be saved. Flesh is physical birth. I’m talking about SPIRITUAL birth

This second scenario makes absolutely NO sense.

This is a strawman. I did not say this nor did I imply this. It is the second time, that I have seen, that you have misrepresented our position. That second scenario makes no sense because you made it up.

 

[MarysSon]

Well it definitely doesn't follow Scripture. It follows tradition and man-made doctrine.

The fact that you don’t understand what Sacred/Apostolic Tradition is – is mind-boggling to me as a Christian.
Scripture is so crystal-clear on this:

2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught – EITHER BY and ORAL STATEMENT – OR BY a LETTER from us.

There is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

 

[Particular]

I have already exegeted John 3:5. I presented the entire conversation with Nicodemus and showed that Jesus was answering him according to his question – and his fleshly point of view.

And we’ve already discussed the Thief on the cross. He is the exception.

Here’s a little advice for you: NEVER base your doctrines on the exception. Baptism is the NORM – but he was unable to do it – not unwilling.

Rom. 10:9 states that we must “confess with our mouth” that Christ is Lord in order to be saved.
What if you are a mute? What if you have no tongue?

Your literalism tries to put limits on God’s mercy.

In this case, reading the text as it is actually stated means the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not possibly introduced into the verse by eisegesis, as you so clearly add what is not found in the text.
No limits are placed on God's mercy. Instead we reject meritorious human action as the means by which God is spurred to act with grace.
Baptism does not save. If the act/ceremony of baptism saved, then salvation is not by God's grace. Salvation would be caused by human works. Such a thought is anathema to the person who was chosen by God by no merit of his own doing.
Maryson, there is much at stake by refuting your false interpretation of John 3:5.
The very nature of God's grace being the sole means of salvation (Ephesians 2:1-10) is undermined and abandoned by your view. Your view teaches a legalistic works salvation, which Paul says is anathema in his letter to the Galatians.

 

[MarysSon]

This is a strawman. I did not say this nor did I imply this. It is the second time, that I have seen, that you have misrepresented our position. That second scenario makes no sense because you made it up.

Then, why don't YOU present the verses in Modern layman's English for us?

 

[Reformed1689]

I have already exegeted John 3:5. I presented the entire conversation with Nicodemus and showed that Jesus was answering him according to his question – and his fleshly point of view.

You never exegeted the passage.

And we’ve already discussed the Thief on the cross. He is the exception.

That's a convenient answer.

Here’s a little advice for you: NEVER base your doctrines on the exception. Baptism is the NORM – but he was unable to do it – not unwilling.

Or, it was never commanded to be part of salvation.

There was no contradiction - just YOUR contextual acrobatics.

It was a direct quote. I know that's inconvenient for you.

This second scenario makes absolutely NO sense.

Of course that is not the scenario. This is a strawman argument.

2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught – EITHER BY and ORAL STATEMENT – OR BY a LETTER from us.

There is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

I agree, but I also know this is not talking about traditions that were made after the completion of Scripture

 

[MarysSon]

In this case, reading the text as it is actually stated means the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not possibly introduced into the verse by eisegesis, as you so clearly add what is not found in the text.
No limits are placed on God's mercy. Instead we reject meritorious human action as the means by which God is spurred to act with grace.
Baptism does not save. If the act/ceremony of baptism saved, then salvation is not by God's grace. Salvation would be caused by human works. Such a thought is anathema to the person who was chosen by God by no merit of his own doing.
Maryson, there is much at stake by refuting your false interpretation of John 3:5.
The very nature of God's grace being the sole means of salvation (Ephesians 2:1-10) is undermined and abandoned by your view. Your view teaches a legalistic works salvation, which Paul says is anathema in his letter to the Galatians.

It's not legalistic works.
This false idea that we do absolutely NOTHING for our salvation is anti-Scriptural.

God’s grace is what saves us – but His grace has NO AFFECT on us without our cooperation. The Scriptures are CLEAR on this fact.

This is why of ALL of the Christian virtues we possess – LOVE is the greatest – not faith. Love requires our cooperation.

Galatians 5:6 clearly states:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

 

[Particular]

It's not legalistic works.

God’s grace is what saves us – but His grace has NO AFFECT on us without our cooperation. The Scriptures are CLEAR on this fact.

Works, legalism, in your own statement.
Grace is only grace when God does it regardless of our agreement to it or not. We don't control God. If we did, we would be supreme and God would be our genie.
Second, the Bible is very clear that humans, by nature are rebels against God. We will never cooperate with God when he demands to be supreme and we demand to be supreme. (Read Romans 3 as a primer) We will not seek God. We will hide like Adam and Eve. We will not cooperate. God must choose to give us life in Christ. We can do nothing to stop God's supreme choice. The Bible is clear.
Your post that I am quoting shows you view salvation by works, which cannot be by grace.

 

[MarysSon]

I agree, but I also know this is not talking about traditions that were made after the completion of Scripture

Let’s take Infant Baptism.

Virtually EVERY Early Church Father who has written on the subject states that this was a Tradition handed down to them by the Apostles themselves, yet MOST Protestant sects reject Infant Baptism.



WHY is that?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5 PM Pacific.

 

[MarysSon]

Works, legalism, in your own statement.
Grace is only grace when God does it regardless of our agreement to it or not. We don't control God. If we did, we would be supreme and God would be our genie.
Second, the Bible is very clear that humans, by nature are rebels against God. We will never cooperate with God when he demands to be supreme and we demand to be supreme. (Read Romans 3 as a primer) We will not seek God. We will hide like Adam and Eve. We will not cooperate. God must choose to give us life in Christ. We can do nothing to stop God's supreme choice. The Bible is clear.
Your post that I am quoting shows you view salvation by works, which cannot be by grace.

You are espousing is the unbiblical Calvinist view of Unconditional Election.

We are NOT forced to comply with God’s grace. It is a gift that is freely accepted – or freely rejected.

Picking up our cross daily requires our cooperation.
You don't get to sneak into Heaven without doing His will.

Matt. 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but ONLY the one who DOES THE WILL of my Father in heaven.

 

[Reformed1689]

Let’s take Infant Baptism.

Virtually EVERY Early Church Father who has written on the subject states that this was a Tradition handed down to them by the Apostles themselves, yet MOST Protestant sects reject Infant Baptism.



WHY is that?

Show me one Apostolic Father who said it was told to them by an Apostle directly.

 

[Reformed1689]

You are espousing is the unbiblical Calvinist view of Unconditional Election.

We are NOT forced to comply with God’s grace. It is a gift that is freely accepted – or freely rejected.

Picking up our cross daily requires our cooperation.
You don't get to sneak into Heaven without doing His will.

Matt. 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but ONLY the one who DOES THE WILL of my Father in heaven.

Strawman argument.