Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[Vicomte13]

He was not a follower of Christ at the time on John 3

No, but he was a curious seeker.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

The context of Hebrews chapter 9, the Hebrew writer is showing the differences between the OT and the NT... giving a description of how those OT rites were performed then showing how the blood of Christ is superior to those of animal sacrifices Heb 9:1-15. Then in verses 16 and 17 shows how those under the OT (as us today) still required the blood of Christ to have all sins remitted completely. The OT needed to be cancelled out to bring in the NT where all men's sins can be cleansed away by the blood of Christ.

Verse 17 categorically states "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." The language cannot be more plain and simple. Even wills/testaments today operate under this very same standard. Therefore the 'thief argument' is dead. I see you continue to look for ways around this, but there is no way to get around the simple words, meaning of Heb 9:16,17. You are removing it from its context for you are trying to find a way to get the thief saved under the NT without being baptized to satisfy your theological bias.

the OT was never cancelled out(matthew 5:17-20). it's fulfilled in Christ.

you're hung up on the word "testament" in that verse. when reading the verse in context it's referring to the new covenant in Christ blood for the remission of sins. you are referring to the law overall which is not what this verse or this chapter is referring to.

why would I need to find a way to get the thief saved under the NT without baptism when this is exactly what Jesus did? are you saying the thief was baptized? can you prove that?

 

[MarysSon]

However I don't think that I accept that the baptism inferred in John 3 is John the Baptizer's Baptism.

Can you explain what IS inferred in John 3:5??

What does Jesus mean when He says that nobody can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born of water and Spirit??

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed for going off topic, discussing each other, and flame/goad/mocking.

 

[miknik5]

Since this post was specifically directed to a non-Catholic and talking about a conversation he was having with another Catholic, my guess would be two Catholics were involved. Am uncertain why there would be confusion about that.

Am also unclear why/how anyone reading this thread would confuse including you as being a part of that particular exchange or a Catholic.

Because I indeed said I am catholic but CHRISTian first

 

[Philip_B]

Can you explain what IS inferred in John 3:5?? What does Jesus mean when He says that nobody can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born of water and Spirit??

John 3:5
Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.​

One exegetic approach to this passage would be to see being born of water as a reference to the waters that break when a baby is born naturally and being born of Spirit as a reference to what happens when a person becomes a Christian and receives the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

Another exegetic approach to the passage would be to see being born of water and Spirit as a reference to the sacrament of Baptism, that is Christian Baptism, which I was distinguishing from the baptism of John the Baptiser who appeared as a voice in the wilderness calling people to repentance.

John 1:24-28
Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, ‘Why then are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’ John answered them, ‘I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.’ This took place in Bethany across the Jordan where John was baptizing.​

John's baptism was not an absolutely unfamiliar practice, and the Jews were certainly aware of various washing rituals, especially associated with gentiles who came to associates themselves with the Jewish community. The rite Tevilah is the most obvious of these traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baptism.

There are a number of things about Christian Baptism which are clearly distinguishable

• The emphasis is about incorporation following repentance and turning to Christ
• Associated with the gift of the Holy Spirit
• Involves water and the invocation to the three persons of the Holy Trinity
  
• Is received in the Christian Tradition as a once only event.
• Is understood as a sharing in the death of Christ that we might share eternal life with him.

For myself, I believe what is inferred is Christian Baptism, yet is fairness to the process of exegesis I must allow that I come at the text understanding that there are sacraments and the The Fourth Gospel does speak of sacraments. I accept that there are Christians who subscribe to a theory that there are no sacraments in John, and whilst I do not accept that proposition, I understand that they do.

 

[miknik5]

John 3:5
Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.​

One exegetic approach to this passage would be to see being born of water as a reference to the waters that break when a baby is born naturally and being born of Spirit as a reference to what happens when a person becomes a Christian and receives the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

Another exegetic approach to the passage would be to see being born of water and Spirit as a reference to the sacrament of Baptism, that is Christian Baptism, which I was distinguishing from the baptism of John the Baptiser who appeared as a voice in the wilderness calling people to repentance.

John 1:24-28
Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, ‘Why then are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’ John answered them, ‘I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.’ This took place in Bethany across the Jordan where John was baptizing.​

John's baptism was not an absolutely unfamiliar practice, and the Jews were certainly aware of various washing rituals, especially associated with gentiles who came to associates themselves with the Jewish community. The rite Tevilah is the most obvious of these traditions. History of baptism - Wikipedia.

There are a number of things about Christian Baptism which are clearly distinguishable

• The emphasis is about incorporation following repentance and turning to Christ
• Associated with the gift of the Holy Spirit
• Involves water and the invocation to the three persons of the Holy Trinity
  
• Is received in the Christian Tradition as a once only event.
• Is understood as a sharing in the death of Christ that we might share eternal life with him.

For myself, I believe what is inferred is Christian Baptism, yet is fairness to the process of exegesis I must allow that I come at the text understanding that there are sacraments and the The Fourth Gospel does speak of sacraments. I accept that there are Christians who subscribe to a theory that there are no sacraments in John, and whilst I do not accept that proposition, I understand that they do.

View attachment 190061​

Or....

John 3:5
Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.​

One exegetic approach to this passage would be to see being born of water as a reference to the waters that break when a baby is born naturally and being born of Spirit as a reference to what happens when a person becomes a Christian and receives the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

Another exegetic approach to the passage would be to see being born of water and Spirit as a reference to the sacrament of Baptism, that is Christian Baptism, which I was distinguishing from the baptism of John the Baptiser who appeared as a voice in the wilderness calling people to repentance.

John 1:24-28
Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, ‘Why then are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’ John answered them, ‘I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.’ This took place in Bethany across the Jordan where John was baptizing.​

John's baptism was not an absolutely unfamiliar practice, and the Jews were certainly aware of various washing rituals, especially associated with gentiles who came to associates themselves with the Jewish community. The rite Tevilah is the most obvious of these traditions. History of baptism - Wikipedia.

There are a number of things about Christian Baptism which are clearly distinguishable

• The emphasis is about incorporation following repentance and turning to Christ
• Associated with the gift of the Holy Spirit
• Involves water and the invocation to the three persons of the Holy Trinity
  
• Is received in the Christian Tradition as a once only event.
• Is understood as a sharing in the death of Christ that we might share eternal life with him.

For myself, I believe what is inferred is Christian Baptism, yet is fairness to the process of exegesis I must allow that I come at the text understanding that there are sacraments and the The Fourth Gospel does speak of sacraments. I accept that there are Christians who subscribe to a theory that there are no sacraments in John, and whilst I do not accept that proposition, I understand that they do.

View attachment 190061​

One thing I think we can't do is divide

CHRIST didn't come to divide

The word of GOD was to the Jew
CHRIST came to bring the two together and make them one in HIMSELF

"Christian" baptism represented purification

And purification was required in order for one to come into the presence of GOD

 

[Philip_B]

One thing I think we can't do is divide
CHRIST didn't come to divide
The word of GOD was to the Jew
CHRIST came to bring the two together and make them one in HIMSELF
"Christian" baptism represented purification
And purification was required in order for one to come into the presence of GOD

I am sorry to say I don't understand the point you are making. The Johannine passage is about new birth. Their is clearly an association with the Jewish rites of purification associated with the baptism of John the Baptist - the notion of a Baptism with water for repentance, to purify oneself for the coming kingdom, however I think it is very limited to narrowly focus Christian Baptism to a single theme, and if one was to do that the theme I believe would need to be death and resurrection of Jesus rather than purification.

Also in John's Gospel I don't think that the Word of God was to the Jew, and I think that point in amplified in the encounter with the Samaritan Woman in John 4. She indeed is the antithesis of the Jewish Holy Man for she is A loose living Samaritan Woman.

 

[miknik5]

I am sorry to say I don't understand the point you are making. The Johannine passage is about new birth. Their is clearly an association with the Jewish rites of purification associated with the baptism of John the Baptist - the notion of a Baptism with water for repentance, to purify oneself for the coming kingdom, however I think it is very limited to narrowly focus Christian Baptism to a single theme, and if one was to do that the theme I believe would need to be death and resurrection of Jesus rather than purification.

Also in John's Gospel I don't think that the Word of God was to the Jew, and I think that point in amplified in the encounter with the Samaritan Woman in John 4. She indeed is the antithesis of the Jewish Holy Man for she is A loose living Samaritan Woman.

what Jewish holy man?

Is there one?

That is the Whole point of not only HAGGAI 2 but THE NEW COVENANT

The law, the Word, and all the temple rituals and practices were to the Jew who had the word of GOD

Yet it is in the very word of GOD (to the Jew) that ALL PEOPLE are declared unclean before HIM

And it is also in the very Word that GOD promised (again to the Jew initially) a NEW COVENANT

This is why I said HE didn't come to divide but to make one new creation out of the two

Those near (the Jew who had all the word and promises of GOD) and those far (the gentile who didn't)

 

[miknik5]

GOD never meant to divide. HIS first chosen were supposed to be a light to all men. They weren't supposed to treat an alien as an alien

The Samaritan woman?

She knew of the promise of GOD and was herself waiting for the messiah

She may have been a despised Samaritan. But she understood and believed and she held to Jacobs well as her lifeline and inheritance in GOD because her older brothers werent doing the work they were supposed to do

Giving her "water"

 

[Philip_B]

GOD never meant to divide. HIS first chosen were supposed to be a light to all men. They weren't supposed to treat an alien as an alien

The Samaritan woman?

She knew of the promise of GOD and was herself waiting for the messiah

She may have been a despised Samaritan. But she understood and believed and she held to Jacobs well as her lifeline and inheritance in GOD because her older brothers werent doing the work they were supposed to do

Giving her "water"

I would love to talk about this passage sometime, however I think it is way off the track of this thread.

The other response, I don't really understand, as we seem to be saying the same thing more or less, but it seems you don't like the way I said it.

 

[MarysSon]

John 3:5
Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.​

One exegetic approach to this passage would be to see being born of water as a reference to the waters that break when a baby is born naturally and being born of Spirit as a reference to what happens when a person becomes a Christian and receives the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

Another exegetic approach to the passage would be to see being born of water and Spirit as a reference to the sacrament of Baptism, that is Christian Baptism, which I was distinguishing from the baptism of John the Baptiser who appeared as a voice in the wilderness calling people to repentance.

John 1:24-28
Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, ‘Why then are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’ John answered them, ‘I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.’ This took place in Bethany across the Jordan where John was baptizing.​

John's baptism was not an absolutely unfamiliar practice, and the Jews were certainly aware of various washing rituals, especially associated with gentiles who came to associates themselves with the Jewish community. The rite Tevilah is the most obvious of these traditions. History of baptism - Wikipedia.

There are a number of things about Christian Baptism which are clearly distinguishable

• The emphasis is about incorporation following repentance and turning to Christ
• Associated with the gift of the Holy Spirit
• Involves water and the invocation to the three persons of the Holy Trinity
  
• Is received in the Christian Tradition as a once only event.
• Is understood as a sharing in the death of Christ that we might share eternal life with him.

For myself, I believe what is inferred is Christian Baptism, yet is fairness to the process of exegesis I must allow that I come at the text understanding that there are sacraments and the The Fourth Gospel does speak of sacraments. I accept that there are Christians who subscribe to a theory that there are no sacraments in John, and whilst I do not accept that proposition, I understand that they do

​

​

The problem with the first exegetic example you gave is that it doesn't make sense. I've heard this explanation from many Protestants - but the conversation stops after I say what I am about to say:

If Jesus had said plainly, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" - he would be condemning all aborted and miscarried children to Hell.

To put it frankly - it would have been moronic for Jesus to say this because Nicodemus already knew how children are born. He was asking Jesus how a person is born AGAIN. In this verse (v. 5), Jesus explains to him how this is done.

Consider your position if this conversation had taken place in plain English:
Nicodemus: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God because nobody could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus: “I’m telling you the truth – nobody can get to Heaven unless they are born again.”
Nicodemus: “How can someone be born when they are old? They can’t go back into their mom’s womb to be born!”
Jesus: “I’m telling you the truth – nobody can get to Heaven unless they come from their mom’s womb.

Do you see how silly and nonsensical this exchange is when you remove Baptism from the context??
Nicodemus's next response would have been something like this:
Nicodemus: “I already know how kids are born but that's NOT what I asked you."

 

[Philip_B]

The problem with the first exegetic example you gave is that it doesn't make sense. I've heard this explanation from many Protestants - but the conversation stops after I say what I am about to say:

If Jesus had said plainly, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" - he would be condemning all aborted and miscarried children to Hell.

To put it frankly - it would have been moronic for Jesus to say this because Nicodemus already knew how children are born. He was asking Jesus how a person is born AGAIN. In this verse (v. 5), Jesus explains to him how this is done.

Consider your position if this conversation had taken place in plain English:
Nicodemus: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God because nobody could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus: “I’m telling you the truth – nobody can get to Heaven unless they are born again.”
Nicodemus: “How can someone be born when they are old? They can’t go back into their mom’s womb to be born!”
Jesus: “I’m telling you the truth – nobody can get to Heaven unless they come from their mom’s womb.

Do you see how silly and nonsensical this exchange is when you remove Baptism from the context??
Nicodemus's next response would have been something like this:
Nicodemus: “I already know how kids are born but that's NOT what I asked you."

Why on earth do I feel mocked when I was actually agreeing with you! Go figure! Pardon me for being reasonable.

 

[MarysSon]

Why on earth do I feel mocked when I was actually agreeing with you! Go figure! Pardon me for being reasonable.

My mistake.
I thought your were posing this example it as a position that you were entertaining.

 

[miknik5]

I would love to talk about this passage sometime, however I think it is way off the track of this thread.

The other response, I don't really understand, as we seem to be saying the same thing more or less, but it seems you don't like the way I said it.

Probably. I'll slow down
Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying

 

[Der Alte]

The problem with the first exegetic example you gave is that it doesn't make sense. I've heard this explanation from many Protestants - but the conversation stops after I say what I am about to say:

If Jesus had said plainly, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" - he would be condemning all aborted and miscarried children to Hell

...

No it would not have been condemning all aborted and miscarried children.

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

 

[MarysSon]

No it would not have been condemning all aborted and miscarried children.

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

​

Exactly - it would have been a direct contradiction of the verses you posted.

Bottom line: The notion that Jesus was talking about amniotic fluid in John 3:5 simply doesn't work in the context of Scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

Exactly - it would have been a direct contradiction of the verses you posted.
Bottom line: The notion that Jesus was talking about amniotic fluid in John 3:5 simply doesn't work in the context of Scripture.

Repeating the same claim over and over does not make it true. Nothing in scripture is a direct contradiction of the 2 verses I posted. Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13.

 

[MarysSon]

Repeating the same claim over and over does not make it true. Nothing in scripture is a direct contradiction of the 2 verses I posted. Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13.

Correct again.
Not ONE verse of Scripture contradicts another.

The teaching on Baptism that we read in John 3:5 harmonizes with every other verse about Baptism.

 

[Der Alte]

Correct again.
Not one verse of Scripture contradicts another.
The teaching on Baptism that we read in John 3:5 harmonizes with every other verse about Baptism.

Except for the fact that Jesus did not say any form of the word baptize in John 3:5. In the gospels Jesus used some form of the word Baptize 19 times. When talking to a Jewish leader, since being born again is so critical so important why didn't Jesus clearly say "you must be baptized and born of the spirit?" If that is what He meant?