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.