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.

 

[Jim]

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.

I see. Ananias was wrong but @dwight92070 is right. What a joke.

 

[mailmandan]

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.

The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing, (Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5), of the "washing of regeneration."

The tense of the verb “wash” in Acts 22:16 supports a figurative washing.

Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

In Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the...

kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
washing.
From louo; a bath, i.e. (figuratively), baptism -- washing.

in a figurative way: such as
with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal

The New Testament never treats the water as an independent means of salvation; rather, faith in Christ and the regenerating Spirit actualize what water signifies (Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:21).

Strong's Greek: 3067. λουτρόν (loutron) -- Washing, Bath

 

[Jim]

The tense of the verb “wash” in Acts 22:16 supports a figurative washing.

Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

In Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the...

kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

A standard case of misdirection at its worst. It seeks to show that baptism is not the functioning cause of the "washing away of sin". I agree with that. God, and only God, forgives the repentant believer. It is the timing for when God forgives the repentant believer that is at issue. In that, the author of the article really misses on that one. Little of what he presents in his argument is really scripturally accurate.

He says, " The book of Acts definitively indicates that Paul’s sins were forgiven before he was baptized as mentioned in Acts 22:16"; but that is not true and his attempt to support it is full of holes. The author, if not a Calvinist, certainly seems to lean heavily in that direction. And that for me is the end of a rational biblical treatment of soteriology.

 

[mailmandan]

A standard case of misdirection at its worst. It seeks to show that baptism is not the functioning cause of the "washing away of sin". I agree with that. God, and only God, forgives the repentant believer. It is the timing for when God forgives the repentant believer that is at issue. In that, the author of the article really misses on that one. Little of what he presents in his argument is really scripturally accurate.

He says, " The book of Acts definitively indicates that Paul’s sins were forgiven before he was baptized as mentioned in Acts 22:16"; but that is not true and his attempt to support it is full of holes. The author, if not a Calvinist, certainly seems to lean heavily in that direction. And that for me is the end of a rational biblical treatment of soteriology.

The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed, he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)

In regard to Acts 22:16, Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160].

Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

Romans 10:17 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was BEFORE he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.

It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It's highly unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.

 

[Jim]

The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body." (Matthew 26:26) The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed, he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away. (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5)

The blood of Christ is means whereby God can offset the punishment of the one committing the sin and forgive his sins. But it is still God, and only God, that forgives. It is by Jesus' sacrifice of His own blood that God can forgive. It is God that washes away the sin in baptism. Baptism is the instant in time in the life of the repentant believer that God washes away his sins.

 

[Jim]

It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It's highly unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.

Verses 12-18 do not place the time when Jesus actually commissioned Paul as being before he was baptized.

 

[Jim]

Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was BEFORE he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is not limited only to the saved. Being indwelled with the Holy Spirit is limited to those who have been saved; but being filled with the Holy Spirit is not. That had been occurring throughout the OT and occasionally even to non-believers and to animals such as Baalam's donkey. Being filled with the Holy Spirit indicated only that the one being filled was being enabled to do something not normally within his capabilities; it did not indicate salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

The blood of Christ is means whereby God can offset the punishment of the one committing the sin and forgive his sins. But it is still God, and only God, that forgives. It is by Jesus' sacrifice of His own blood that God can forgive. It is God that washes away the sin in baptism. Baptism is the instant in time in the life of the repentant believer that God washes away his sins.

Your timing is off. Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

These Gentiles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism.

As for me, I came to believe the gospel several years ago (October 11 will make 27 years - Praise God!) on a late Saturday night, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and was saved BEFORE I received water baptism on Sunday morning.

Water baptism pictures the washing away of sins. Baptism is the token or emblem of our literal redemption by Jesus Christ. That is, it manifests in ceremony that which really does procure salvation. It declares by a means of physical likeness that which redeems. It is the visible “likeness” (Romans 6:5) of the actual work of Christ, just as a photograph is the pictorial likeness of some individual, not the actual person. Literal salvation by Christ is not figurative, but actual. Figurative salvation by baptism is not literal, but symbolic.

Remission of sins has three applications:

1. Literally, by the Death of Christ - Matthew 26:26-28

2. Experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 26:18

3. Ceremonially, by Baptism - Acts 22:16

 

[Jim]

Water baptism pictures the washing away of sins. Baptism is the token or emblem of our literal redemption by Jesus Christ. That is, it manifests in ceremony that which really does procure salvation. It declares by a means of physical likeness that which redeems. It is the visible “likeness” (Romans 6:5) of the actual work of Christ, just as a photograph is the pictorial likeness of some individual, not the actual person. Literal salvation by Christ is not figurative, but actual. Figurative salvation by baptism is not literal, but symbolic.

Baptism is both literal and symbolic. It is literal in that it is the point in time when God forgives the believer's sins. It is symbolic in that it paints the picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.