John 3:5... YES! ANOTHER BAPTISM THREAD!

[Mungo]

The context of John 3 is what I was talking about. Jesus was speaking of spiritual things, not literal. Thus, I see no context stating he was talking about literal water.

Why are the two (physical and spiritual) exclusive?

The new (spiritual) birth is effected by both the physical and spiritual (water and Spirit).

In Acts 8:17, when Peter and John laid hands on people (physical) they received the Holy Spirit (spiritual). See also Acts 19:6

Immediately after this Jesus goes with his disciples and baptises in real water. You can't just ignore that. If John had not put that in there and gone straight into the woman at the well sequence you might have a point. But John chose to give a context of baptism in literal water.

As for history, I am fully aware that baptism has been a tradition from the start, and I am not against such.

It's not just a matter of history but who wrote the quote I gave you.

Timothy was a disciple of Paul (an apostle). He instructed Timothy "what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well" (2Tim 2:2).
Paul taught Timothy, who taught "faithful people" who would be able to teach others.
In the same way John taught Polycarp who in his turn taught "faithful people" - Irenaeus, who in his taught was able to teach others (us) by his writings.
Would you trust the witness of the "faithful people" that Timothy taught?
If so why not trust the "faithful people" that Polycarp taught?
Both of them (Polycarp and Irenaeus) died martyrs for the faith they had been entrusted with.

 

[Enoch111]

In the same way John taught Polycarp who in his turn taught "faithful people" - Irenaeus, who in his taught was able to teach others (us) by his writings.

The apostle John would not have contradicted Christ or the other apostles. If Peter preached "Repent and be baptized" so did all the others. And since infants or even young children cannot possibly know what repentance means, therefore cannot repent, it follows that they cannot be baptized according to Christ, who said "He that believeth and is baptized..." (and repentance and believing go together).

 

[Helen]

I'm 100% with @FHII on this one....all the way.
Sorry guys , but the regenerating Living Water that Jesus spoke about is of so much greater importance that all the silly quibbling about wet water that cannot do anything for anyone....except keep out flesh alive when we need a drink...but Jesus says ..My Water will quench the Spiritual thirst.

 

[Mungo]

The apostle John would not have contradicted Christ or the other apostles. If Peter preached "Repent and be baptized" so did all the others. And since infants or even young children cannot possibly know what repentance means, therefore cannot repent, it follows that they cannot be baptized according to Christ, who said "He that believeth and is baptized..." (and repentance and believing go together).

Of course the apostle John didn't contradict Jesus and I haven't suggested he did. Your response is wrong on many points.

1. Jesus said "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". That doesn't say that being baptised is the ONLY thing someone has to do to enter the kingdom of God.

2. Peter was preaching to adults and his "Repent and be baptised" was in answer to a question from adults.

3. Children have no need to repent because they have nothing to repent of.

4. Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That does not say that someone who does not repent vcannot be baptised.

 

[Mungo]

I'm 100% with @FHII on this one....all the way.
Sorry guys , but the regenerating Living Water that Jesus spoke about is of so much greater importance that all the silly quibbling about wet water that cannot do anything for anyone....except keep out flesh alive when we need a drink...but Jesus says ..My Water will quench the Spiritual thirst.

Any scriptures to back up your opinion?

 

[Helen]

Any scriptures to back up your opinion?

Only what Jesus says about the Living Water of which we are to drink continually...which is Himself...as is the Bead of Heaven.

I have been water baptised ... a one shot deal...but the living Water is a daily experience.

The children of Israel are a good picture ..." they were all baptized in The Cloud and in the sea...." They went through the sea ( on dry land mind you) ..but the Cloud hung over them all day every day...

Just my two cents...

 

[FHII]

Why are the two (physical and spiritual) exclusive?

Because Jesus separated them. Jesus was clearly speaking of spiritual or heavenly water.

John 3:12 KJV
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

You can also look at 1 Cor 2:14 as well as Romans 8:8-9.

Immediately after this Jesus goes with his disciples and baptises in real water.

Actually Jesus didn't baptize with literal water; his disciples did. I acknowledge that Jesus and his disciples were performing baptisms. I have several times. I am not against water baptism, as it was done. I do however, believe it is a symbol for a greater baptism.

The incidents at the end of chapter 3 and beginning of chapter 4 were not done immediately after Jesus talked to Nicodemus. It would be at least a day or two (possibly longer). Thus, it really isn't connected to John 3:5.

It's not just a matter of history but who wrote the quote I gave you.

I have no problem with Irenaeus... But simply becausehe was taught by a guy who John taught doesn't make him correct. However it is worthwhile to look at his quote as I noticed something interesting:

• And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190

Irenaeus does quote John 3:5 but he speaks of sacred water and the invocation of the Lord as what clenses us. He properly uses the account of Naaman as a foreshadow to a greater thing.

I have no problem with that at all... It still doesn't change my thinking that Jesus was speaking of spiritual, heavenly or, as Irenaeus called it, sacred water.

 

[Mungo]

Only what Jesus says about the Living Water of which we are to drink continually...which is Himself...as is the Bead of Heaven.

I have been water baptised ... a one shot deal...but the living Water is a daily experience.

The children of Israel are a good picture ..." they were all baptized in The Cloud and in the sea...." They went through the sea ( on dry land mind you) ..but the Cloud hung over them all day every day...

Just my two cents...

Still don't see any scripture.

never mind.

 

[Mungo]

Because Jesus separated them. Jesus was clearly speaking of spiritual or heavenly water.

Jesus wasn't clearly speaking of spiritual or heavenly water or we would not be having this discussion.

John 3:12 KJV
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Doesn't say anything about water.

You can also look at 1 Cor 2:14 as well as Romans 8:8-9.

They say nothing about baptism

And again you are pushing the Protestant either/or line. Physical and spiritual are not mutually exclusive as I showed.

Actually Jesus didn't baptize with literal water; his disciples did. I acknowledge that Jesus and his disciples were performing baptisms. I have several times. I am not against water baptism, as it was done. I do however, believe it is a symbol for a greater baptism.

Actually scripture says Jesus baptised with [literal] water.
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.(Jn 3:17)
And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:28)

"Baptism with the Holy Spirit " was after Jesus dies and rose again. At this time there was only baptism with water.

The incidents at the end of chapter 3 and beginning of chapter 4 were not done immediately after Jesus talked to Nicodemus. It would be at least a day or two (possibly longer). Thus, it really isn't connected to John 3:5.

John connects them by putting them in a sequence.

I have no problem with Irenaeus... But simply becausehe was taught by a guy who John taught doesn't make him correct. However it is worthwhile to look at his quote as I noticed something interesting:

Irenaeus does quote John 3:5 but he speaks of sacred water and the invocation of the Lord as what clenses us. He properly uses the account of Naaman as a foreshadow to a greater thing.

I have no problem with that at all... It still doesn't change my thinking that Jesus was speaking of spiritual, heavenly or, as Irenaeus called it, sacred water.

It's all about literal water not spiritual water.
Naaman had to do two things:
1. Have faith.
2. Be obedient and be baptised (washed) in literal water.

Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"
Again two things:
1. Have faith.
2. Be obedient and be baptised (washed) in literal water.

Yes, baptism is symbolic - the washing symbolises the inner cleansing that the Holy Spirit is doing within us.
And again it's both physical and spiritual just as we are both physical and spiritual beings.

But you believe what you like.

 

[FHII]

Jesus wasn't clearly speaking of spiritual or heavenly water or we would not be having this discussion.

Yes, actually he was clearly speaking of spiritual things. He got upset at Nicodemus because he didn't understand that point.

Doesn't say anything about water.

(speaking of John 3:12)

We're you following the conversation? You asked if spiritual and physical were exclusive. This verse shows that yes, they are. And by the way, John 3:5 doesn't say anything about baptism.

They say nothing about baptism

And again you are pushing the Protestant either/or line. Physical and spiritual are not mutually exclusive as I showed.

Again, were you following the conversation? These verses clearly show otherwise. And I must have missed whatever scripture you gave that state they aren't exclusive.

Actually scripture says Jesus baptised with [literal] water.
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.(Jn 3:17)
And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:28

Well, you are in for a shock here... How far did you read down?

John 4:1-3 KJV
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, [2] (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) [3] He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit " was after Jesus dies and rose again. At this time there was only baptism with water.

John said Jesus would do it.

Matthew 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John connects them by putting them in a sequence.

No he doesn't. Jesus's discussion was about many things, water baptism not being one of them. They are in sequence, but that doesn't make them related. However, if you want to stick with that theory, the next event after Jesus and his disciples were baptizing (though Jesus didn't perform water baptisms) was the incident at the well where Jesus spoke of the difference between literal and heavenly water.

And that incident at the well is part of my point. It shows there is a literal water and a heavenly (spiritual/sacred) water. The later will bring everlasting life. Understanding this point, which do you believe he was speaking of in John 3:5?

It's all about literal water not spiritual water.
Naaman had to do two things:
1. Have faith.
2. Be obedient and be baptised (washed) in literal water.

Have you read the original account? Naaman DIDN'T have faith. He was rather offended and refused at first. His servant had to talk him into it. His problem wasn't with being baptized in water, he just didn't want to do it in the Jordan River. I get the impression that besides leprosy, his pride had to be washed away.

This was about obedience.

Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"

Absolutely! I believe we have to be baptized too! But we must be baptized in his blood and in him.

Yes, baptism is symbolic - the washing symbolises the inner cleansing that the Holy Spirit is doing within us.

And that is the baptism I am speaking of.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The water of baptism is NOT unnecessary. But it is simply unnecessary for salvation. It is necessary for sanctification, and it is a commandment of Christ.

Nonsense.

Sanctification is PART of the process of salvation.
To say Baptism is necessary for one but not the other is contradictory.

If it's a commandment of Christ - then it's necessary . . .

 

[Enoch111]

Jesus said "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".

Yes, and as I already pointed out that *water* was the Gospel -- the Word of God. See John 1:12,13 and many other passages.

 

[Enoch111]

Sanctification is PART of the process of salvation.

Justification is not the same as sanctification, and one must be justified by grace through faith to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ (as well as eternal life as a free gift). That is salvation.

To say Baptism is necessary for one but not the other is contradictory. If it's a commandment of Christ - then it's necessary . . .

Sanctification begins with water baptism and then goes forward in obedience to Christ. Hence it is necessary for sanctification, but justification is by grace through faith (which the Catholic Church rejects).

 

[Hidden In Him]

3. Children have no need to repent because they have nothing to repent of.

4. Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That does not say that someone who does not repent cannot be baptized.

Greetings, Mungo, and blessings in Christ!

Listen, I know what you are saying here in this passage and all - age of accountability, if I understand you correctly - but to me these two statements naturally beg a question then: If they have nothing to repent of yet, shouldn't the church be waiting to baptize them in water until after they do?

I mean, baptism represents death to the old man and birth into the new. If they have nothing to die to yet, why not wait until they understand their own personal need to die to the old, fleshly man first?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Justification is not the same as sanctification, and one must be justified by grace through faith to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ (as well as eternal life as a free gift). That is salvation.

Sanctification begins with water baptism and then goes forward in obedience to Christ. Hence it is necessary for sanctification, but justification is by grace through faith (which the Catholic Church rejects).

Wrong.
Baptism is part of the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5). It's pretty much the FIRST obedient act of a new believer.

And, we don't receive "imputed" righteousness when we enter Heaven.
Christ MAKES us righteous. Rev. 21:27 states explicitly that NOTHING impure of imperfect can enter Heaven - and that includes Luther's "snow-covered dunghills" . . .

 

[Philip James]

And that is the baptism I am speaking of.

They're a package deal. The power of the Holy Spirit effects that which the water also symbolises.
That is the whole point. This is the sacrament of Baptism through which one is born a child of God, becoming a member of the body of Christ.
It is this great sacrament and the Eucharist that flow from Jesus side and give life to the Church.
The water and the Blood.

Peace be with you.

 

[Mungo]

Yes, actually he was clearly speaking of spiritual things. He got upset at Nicodemus because he didn't understand that point.

(speaking of John 3:12)

We're you following the conversation? You asked if spiritual and physical were exclusive. This verse shows that yes, they are. And by the way, John 3:5 doesn't say anything about baptism.



Again, were you following the conversation? These verses clearly show otherwise. And I must have missed whatever scripture you gave that state they aren't exclusive.


Well, you are in for a shock here... How far did you read down?

John 4:1-3 KJV
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, [2] (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) [3] He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.



John said Jesus would do it.

Matthew 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


No he doesn't. Jesus's discussion was about many things, water baptism not being one of them. They are in sequence, but that doesn't make them related. However, if you want to stick with that theory, the next event after Jesus and his disciples were baptizing (though Jesus didn't perform water baptisms) was the incident at the well where Jesus spoke of the difference between literal and heavenly water.

And that incident at the well is part of my point. It shows there is a literal water and a heavenly (spiritual/sacred) water. The later will bring everlasting life. Understanding this point, which do you believe he was speaking of in John 3:5?


Have you read the original account? Naaman DIDN'T have faith. He was rather offended and refused at first. His servant had to talk him into it. His problem wasn't with being baptized in water, he just didn't want to do it in the Jordan River. I get the impression that besides leprosy, his pride had to be washed away.

This was about obedience.


Absolutely! I believe we have to be baptized too! But we must be baptized in his blood and in him.


And that is the baptism I am speaking of.

Let's summarise.

In your opinion, in John 3:5, water doesn't mean water.

In my opinion, backed up by lots of evidence (some of which - by your own admittance - you didn't read), water in John 3:5 means just that - H2O

 

[Mungo]

Greetings, Mungo, and blessings in Christ!

Listen, I know what you are saying here in this passage and all - age of accountability, if I understand you correctly - but to me these two statements naturally beg a question then: If they have nothing to repent of yet, shouldn't the church be waiting to baptize them in water until after they do?

I mean, baptism represents death to the old man and birth into the new. If they have nothing to die to yet, why not wait until they understand their own personal need to die to the old, fleshly man first?

No, because baptism isn't just about forgiveness of sins.
It brings children into the new Covenant, makes them members of the Church & children of God.
They are moved from being "in Adam" to "in Christ".

Why wouldn't parents want that for their children?

Added: - Just noticed that Philip James has already pointed this out.
I should have read it through first!.

 

[Mungo]

Yes, and as I already pointed out that *water* was the Gospel -- the Word of God. See John 1:12,13 and many other passages.

Water isn't the gospel. That's nonsense.

 

[bbyrd009]

Hello all,

Here comes another water baptism thread for you! I'm starting another because I see this scripture coming up in all of them, and I have some things to discuss. I haven't read every post of every thread, so if someone already pointed out, my apologies.

Here's the main text:

John 3:5 KJV
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

First thing, has anyone noticed that baptism isn't directly mentioned? Yet this verse is often quoted as being proof that water baptism is needed. Well, let's hold off on that for now... We will get to whether this is talking about baptism later.

I want to discuss this "water". This water will allow you enter the kingdom of God (which is in men, but that's a bit deep for now). Or at least that's what the verse suggests, and I agree.

But is this talking about physical water or spiritual water?

Let's look at a statement from the next chapter:

John 4:14 KJV
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him [called living water In verse 10] shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jesus here is obviously talking about spiritual or heavenly water. It will be a well within him that brings everlasting life.

That being said, let's revisit John 3:5. If you aren't born of water and the spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I have a feeling that in John 3:5 Jesus isn't talking about H2O. It doesn't seem reasonable that he's talking about literal water in chapter 3 and spiritual water in chapter 4 when he's discussing the same goal (entering the kingdom of God and having everlasting life).

If you still have doubts, let's look at something else Jesus said in chapter 3:

John 3:12 KJV
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Jesus said himself he is not speaking of earthly things, but heavenly things. So, I submit to you that "water" in verse 3:5 may not have been speaking of water baptism. Why? Because he was speaking of heavenly or spiritual things at this point.

I have more to point out, but for brevity's sake, I will let this stand for now. The bottom line is that I am not convinced John 3:5 has anything to do with water baptism.

nice imo, fh. havent read the replies yet but imo rituals are not completely useless, until we forget what they symbolize?