He that believes and is not water baptised is saved

[mailmandan]

Jesus' statement in John 3:6 is the answer to Nicodemus' question about a man entering a second time into his mother's womb and be born. Being born again has nothing whatsoever to do with physical birth.

To be born again (v.3) is described as born of water and Spirit (v.5). To be born again is a rebirth of the spirit. To be born of water and Spirit is a rebirth of the spirit. And that has nothing to do with amniotic fluid.

In John 3:5, Jesus said "born of water and the Spirit" and not born of baptism and the Spirit. In the very next chapter, Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14 and He connects living water with eternal life in John 4:14. Also, in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. Did you see that? The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Also "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

 

[Jim]

So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

To automatically read anything into the water in John 3:5 is unwarranted. I do not "automatically" read baptism into John 3:5. To automatically dismiss the reading of baptism into John 3:5 is also unwarranted.

You spoke there of the washing of Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5. It is of interest to note there that the Greek word used in both of those is loutron. That is the same Greek word used in connection with the baptism for washing away his sins in Paul's account of Acts 22:16.

I attribute the washing in both Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 as referring to baptism.

 

[FreeInChrist]

To automatically read anything into the water in John 3:5 is unwarranted. I do not "automatically" read baptism into John 3:5. To automatically dismiss the reading of baptism into John 3:5 is also unwarranted.

You spoke there of the washing of Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5. It is of interest to note there that the Greek word used in both of those is loutron. That is the same Greek word used in connection with the baptism for washing away his sins in Paul's account of Acts 22:16.

I attribute the washing in both Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 as referring to baptism.

John 3:5 water = John 3:6 flesh

 

[Jim]

John 3:5 water = John 3:6 flesh

John 3:3 born again = John 3:5 born of water and Spirit

Flesh is not born again.

 

[FreeInChrist]

John 3:3 born again = John 3:5 born of water and Spirit

Flesh is not born again.

No, but flesh comes from that liquid that every one calls water, when it breaks.

 

[dwight92070]

To automatically read anything into the water in John 3:5 is unwarranted. I do not "automatically" read baptism into John 3:5. To automatically dismiss the reading of baptism into John 3:5 is also unwarranted.

You spoke there of the washing of Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5. It is of interest to note there that the Greek word used in both of those is loutron. That is the same Greek word used in connection with the baptism for washing away his sins in Paul's account of Acts 22:16.

I attribute the washing in both Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 as referring to baptism.

It is absolute insanity to think that God allowed Saul to "see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth" (Acts 22:14) - Jesus told him "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5), and yet we're supposed to believe that it took Saul 3 days before he repented, believed in Jesus, and was baptized and was forgiven of his sins.

That reasoning is sheer stupidity. Obviously at the moment Jesus said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.", Saul immediately repented and believed, and received forgiveness of his sins.

Then Saul said, "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10) The perfect question for a man who had caused great persecution, possibly even death, for the saints, and yet now realizes his terrible mistake

 

[Jim]

No, but flesh comes from that liquid that every one calls water, when it breaks.

A lot of things are related to water which clearly are not being referenced in John 3. And flesh doesn't come from the amniotic fluid; flesh comes from the procreating process.

And I would argue again that the phrase born of water is and never has been used as a euphemism for birth. Moreover, being born again has nothing whatsoever to do with the flesh; it has to do with the spirit.

 

[Jim]

It is absolute insanity to think that God allowed Saul to "see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth" (Acts 22:14) - Jesus told him "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5), and yet we're supposed to believe that it took Saul 3 days before he repented, believed in Jesus, and was baptized and was forgiven of his sins.

That reasoning is sheer stupidity. Obviously at the moment Jesus said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.", Saul immediately repented and believed, and received forgiveness of his sins.

That is not so stated anywhere in the accounts of Paul's conversion. What do you think Jesus means by the command by Ananias to Paul three days later to "wash away his sins"?

 

[dwight92070]

It doesn't have to be stated. If the same experience happened to you or me, seeing the awesome presence of Jesus, and hearing His voice, we would immediately be on our knees crying out for Jesus' forgiveness, at the exact moment that Jesus revealed who He was. In fact, Acts 22:10 implies that he WAS on his knees - Jesus told him to "Get up". Also Acts 9:4 says "he fell to the ground ..."

What do I think Jesus means by what Ananias said? First of all it was Ananias speaking, not Jesus in Acts 22:16. Ananias told Saul that Jesus sent him to lay his hands on Saul so that he could regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit, which happened in Acts 9:17-18. Notice he was filled with the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized - verse 18. So he was already born again.
We see no command of Jesus for Ananias to baptize him, but Ananias knew that that follows after someone is saved, so he baptized him, saying: "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Ananias obviously did not have a correct understanding of baptism. First off, he knew that Saul had ALREADY repented and been forgiven of his sins and had been born again - Ananias called Saul, "Brother Saul" even before Saul had his eyes opened, and before he was filled with the Holy Spirit. So to imply that Saul would have his sins washed away by being baptized - well Ananias was not only mistaken but too late. Saul had already had his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

 

[360watt]

Compare Acts 22:16 with John 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40

Where does the bulk of scripture place emphasis?

On belief or water baptism?

Then actually going to Acts 22:16..with belief in mind as the point.. does the verse put water baptism before belief?

If it hasn't got the particular order, is this the best verse to base water baptism for salvation on?

Then if you know Greek grammar on which this is based, the word order isn't as important as the emphasis.

 

[Jim]

Compare Acts 22:16 with John 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40

Where does the bulk of scripture place emphasis?

On belief or water baptism?

Then actually going to Acts 22:16..with belief in mind as the point.. does the verse put water baptism before belief?

I don't know anyone other than the paedobaptists who puts water baptism before belief.