He that believes and is not water baptised is saved

[Titus]

I assume you don't think it was silly when it was keeping you alive in your mother's womb. Your life depended on it.
Peter didn't think it was silly when he said, "for you have been born again, not of seed which is perishable but imperishable ..." and "like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word." 1 Peter 1:23; and 2:2

Jesus said to be born again requires water baptism and the Spirit to enter the kingdom.

1Peter 1:23 ; 2:2. Does not parallel John 3:5.

Babies desire milk.
Christians should desire the word like a new born desires milk.

The seed is not perishable.
The seed is the everlasting gospel.

Gods word cannot be destroyed is Peter's teaching.

We are born again by the word(gospel).

The word is revealed by the Work of the Spirit.To be born again by water and Spirit does involve the work of the Spirit through the word.

Still there is no teaching by Jesus in John chapter 3 about being physically born.
That definition was invented by John Calvin.

Here are some parallel verses to John 3:5,

- unless one is born again of water(baptism) and the Spirit(work of the Spirit) he cannot enter the kingdom of God
- that He might sanctify and cleanse her(church) with the washing of water(baptism) with the word(Spirit's revelation) Ephesians 5:26.

Overwhelming Greek Scholars accept John 3:5 as water baptism.

 

[dwight92070]

Jesus said to be born again requires water baptism and the Spirit to enter the kingdom.

1Peter 1:23 ; 2:2. Does not parallel John 3:5.

Babies desire milk.
Christians should desire the word like a new born desires milk.

The seed is not perishable.
The seed is the everlasting gospel.

Gods word cannot be destroyed is Peter's teaching.

We are born again by the word(gospel).

The word is revealed by the Work of the Spirit.To be born again by water and Spirit does involve the work of the Spirit through the word.

Still there is no teaching by Jesus in John chapter 3 about being physically born.
That definition was invented by John Calvin.

Here are some parallel verses to John 3:5,

- unless one is born again of water(baptism) and the Spirit(work of the Spirit) he cannot enter the kingdom of God
- that He might sanctify and cleanse her(church) with the washing of water(baptism) with the word(Spirit's revelation) Ephesians 5:26.

Overwhelming Greek Scholars accept John 3:5 as water baptism.

Jesus never used the word baptism in John 3. The Church of Christ adds that. The context of John 3 is childbirth, or natural birth vs. spiritual birth. Jesus Himself referred to that in verse 3. "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus understood that Jesus was referring to a second birth, only he didn't understand that it was a spiritual birth vs. a natural birth. So Jesus explained it further, saying that born of water is likened to the natural birth, but being born of the Spirit is like a 2nd birth, a spiritual birth. Then He further explained that natural birth can be called born of the flesh and the 2nd birth, the spiritual birth is called born of the Spirit.
To change the subject to baptism is clearly not following the context in the chapter. I didn't know that John Calvin invented this, but that surprises me, if true. I would guess that many would have seen the chapter just as I do, long before Calvin. I'm not a Calvinist, so I don't follow his error anyway.

 

[Titus]

Jesus never used the word baptism in John 3. The Church of Christ adds that. The context of John 3 is childbirth, or natural birth vs. spiritual birth. Jesus Himself referred to that in verse 3. "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus understood that Jesus was referring to a second birth, only he didn't understand that it was a spiritual birth vs. a natural birth. So Jesus explained it further, saying that born of water is likened to the natural birth, but being born of the Spirit is like a 2nd birth, a spiritual birth. Then He further explained that natural birth can be called born of the flesh and the 2nd birth, the spiritual birth is called born of the Spirit.
To change the subject to baptism is clearly not following the context in the chapter. I didn't know that John Calvin invented this, but that surprises me, if true. I would guess that many would have seen the chapter just as I do, long before Calvin. I'm not a Calvinist, so I don't follow his error anyway.

Why do the majority of Greek scholars disagree with you?

 

[Peterlag]

Why do the majority of Greek scholars disagree with you?

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

 

[Titus]

Jesus never used the word baptism in John 3. The Church of Christ adds that. The context of John 3 is childbirth, or natural birth vs. spiritual birth.

You demand baptism is an addition to the word water.
Amniotic birthing fluid is not an addition to the word water according to you.
Except it doesn't say amniotic birthing fluid. It says water.

Birthing fluid isnt water.
It contains water.

But water baptism is literally water.
Jesus used the word water, not secretions produced from the female body.

I believe what Jesus said.
He said water therefore it is water.
To say it is something other than water, that is an addition and a substitution of Bible words.

 

[Titus]

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

Your entire comment has nothing to do with hermeneutics.

 

[Peterlag]

Your entire comment has nothing to do with hermeneutics.

We are discussing water baptism. It along with much of what you believe is Catholic. It's not Christian.

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

 

[Titus]

We are discussing water baptism. It along with much of what you believe is Catholic. It's not Christian.

You don't believe Jesus is who He says He is.
You deny His deity.

You have no knowledge of the Scriptures.
You only know heretical sectarian doctrines.

You have more in common with muslims than you do christians.

 

[Titus]

We are discussing water baptism. It along with much of what you believe is Catholic. It's not Christian.

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

Sir I'm not at all interested in what you have to say.
I will never be convinced your know how to rightly divide the word as long as you believe Jesus is not God.

That is the most fundamental belief in Christianity.
To claim my beliefs are not Christian coming from you means nothing to me.

 

[Peterlag]

Sir I'm not at all interested in what you have to say.
I will never be convinced your know how to rightly divide the word as long as you believe Jesus is not God.

That is the most fundamental belief in Christianity.
To claim my beliefs are not Christian coming from you means nothing to me.

If you believe in the trinity and water baptism then those are Catholic and not Christian concepts. It's just the facts. And if the trinity is the most fundamental belief in Christianity? Then what would be left if that was taken away from Christianity? Would the whole Christian concept be totally nonsense?

 

[360watt]

If you believe in the trinity and water baptism then those are Catholic and not Christian concepts. It's just the facts. And if the trinity is the most fundamental belief in Christianity? Then what would be left if that was taken away from Christianity? Would the whole Christian concept be totally nonsense?

Well..the word trinity isn't in the bible, but Jesus is fully God in scripture, just as the Father and Spirit are. And scripture has their power interchangeable as one being, God.

Just look at the power demonstrated in Revelation, aside from Jesus' own power.

 

[Doug Brents]

Mentioning Noah was saved and that now Christians are saved has nothing to do with water. The water did not save Noah and water does not save Christians.

Correct, the water does not save us. There is no power in the water, or anything special about the water. But if Noah had not, in faith, built the Ark and gotten inside of it (with God) then he would have died with all the rest of humanity. But he did get in the Ark and pass through the water and was saved. We too must pass through the water to be reborn. Read the verses yourself, in context:
"who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Corresponding to what? The water of the Flood.

 

[Titus]

And if the trinity is the most fundamental belief in Christianity? Then what would be left if that was taken away from Christianity? Would the whole Christian concept be totally nonsense?

It would prove the Bible to be a book of lies.
So, yes only a fool would choose to be christian knowing that Jesus claiming to be God was a lie from the devil.

 

[MTMattie]

Jesus never used the word baptism in John 3. The Church of Christ adds that. The context of John 3 is childbirth, or natural birth vs. spiritual birth. Jesus Himself referred to that in verse 3. "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus understood that Jesus was referring to a second birth, only he didn't understand that it was a spiritual birth vs. a natural birth. So Jesus explained it further, saying that born of water is likened to the natural birth, but being born of the Spirit is like a 2nd birth, a spiritual birth. Then He further explained that natural birth can be called born of the flesh and the 2nd birth, the spiritual birth is called born of the Spirit.
To change the subject to baptism is clearly not following the context in the chapter. I didn't know that John Calvin invented this, but that surprises me, if true. I would guess that many would have seen the chapter just as I do, long before Calvin. I'm not a Calvinist, so I don't follow his error anyway.

Funny that they all hop onto the water thing when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus.... but fail to include verse 6 which immediately follows vs 5.

5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

THERE IS NO FLESH BORN IN AN IMMERSION.

And the Holy Spirit did not enter the water at Jesus' baptism.

Water is not needed....to be born again. Jesus said so.... or He deliberately was misleading Nick. And He would not.

 

[MTMattie]

You demand baptism is an addition to the word water.

You have never heard of the term Baptism of the Holy Spirt? Or Baptism with fire? (Looks like a new thread is needed.

Amniotic birthing fluid is not an addition to the word water according to you.
Except it doesn't say amniotic birthing fluid. It says water.

When exactly do you think the term amniotic birthing fluid came into being.

Or amincentes ? (interesting read... https://www.ob-ultrasound.net/amniocentesis.html)

It was not so long ago at all.

Have you not always heard "her water broke"?

That is what they would have known on 28-30 CE

Birthing fluid isnt water.
It contains water.

But water baptism is literally water.
Jesus used the word water,

Followed by the word flesh.

John 3
5.Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Not once has it ever been suggested that immersing flesh gets a person reborn.

not secretions produced from the female body.

I believe what Jesus said.
He said water therefore it is water.
To say it is something other than water, that is an addition and a substitution of Bible words.

He said born of water and the spirit IMMEDIATELY following with Flesh gives birth to flesh. Spirit gives birth to spirit.

IOW Water from the flesh.

 

[Titus]

6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

THERE IS NO FLESH BORN IN AN

Nicodemus did not understand Jesus.
Nicodemus asked,
John 3:3,
- Jesus answered and said to Nicodemus, Truly, I say to you unless someone is born again(Jesus is only teaching about spiritual birth not physical birth, born again)

- Jesus answered and said to Nicodemus Truly, I say to you unless someone is born again(spiritual birth) he cannot see the kingdom of God


Nicodemus does not understand, he takes Jesus as physical birth.

John 3:3-4,
- Nicodemus said to Jesus, how can a man be born(physical birth) when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born.

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus is NOT TEACHING ABOUT PHYSICAL BIRTH.

John 3:3-5;6,
- Jesus answered truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water(spiritual birth, as Jesus is not teaching about physical birth) and the Spirit(spiritually born again) he cannot enter the kingdom of God

Jesus then comments on Nicodemus' idea that Jesus was speaking of physical birth.
Jesus tells Nicodemus that physical is physical and spiritual is spiritual.
Helping Nicodemus see the difference between physical birth and spiritual birth, born again

Nowhere was Jesus teaching about physical birth as Jesus said, - unless someone is born again

John 3:5-6;7
- that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit
- do not marvel that I said you must be born again

Jesus re-emphasizing to Nicodemus that He is teaching about spiritual birth not physical birth.

Not once did Jesus tell Nicodemus he must be physically born.
He told Nicodemus he must be born again(spiritual)
Jesus is teaching on being born of the Spirit. Not physical birth as Nicodemus' error.

John 3:3-8,
- the wind blows wherever it pleases you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it goes,
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit

Jesus is teaching on spiritual birth not on physical birth!!!

To interpret these verses as Jesus teaching on physical birth is making the same mistake Nicodemus made.

Nicodemus thought Jesus was teaching on physical birth and so do those today who think water is Jesus teaching on physical birth.
They do not understand mainly because they have been taught error by blind guides in their faith only churches.

John 3:3-9, 11
- Nicodemus responded and said to Jesus how can these things be
John 3:10,
- Jesus answered, You are Israel's teacher, and you do not understand these things

- I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen and yet you wont believe our witness

You believe Jesus' teaching was earthly(natural birth) when He was speaking of that which is heavenly,(water baptism).

Matthew 21:25,
- The baptism(water) of John whence was it from,  heaven or of men

 

[Peterlag]

It would prove the Bible to be a book of lies.
So, yes only a fool would choose to be christian knowing that Jesus claiming to be God was a lie from the devil.

It's an honest question I ask since I have noticed just about all trinity folks defend it with both heels dug in. It's indeed sad that the whole Christian world is centered around a big lie.

 

[Peterlag]

Correct, the water does not save us. There is no power in the water, or anything special about the water. But if Noah had not, in faith, built the Ark and gotten inside of it (with God) then he would have died with all the rest of humanity. But he did get in the Ark and pass through the water and was saved. We too must pass through the water to be reborn. Read the verses yourself, in context:
"who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Corresponding to what? The water of the Flood.

Corresponding to what? That both were saved.

 

[Titus]

It's an honest question I ask since I have noticed just about all trinity folks defend it with both heels dug in. It's indeed sad that the whole Christian world is centered around a big lie.

Jesus told lies if you are correct that He is not God.

 

[Titus]

It's an honest question I ask since I have noticed just about all trinity folks defend it with both heels dug in. It's indeed sad that the whole Christian world is centered around a big lie.

You have more in common with the atheist professor Bart Ehrman than you do with christian doctrine.