I would literally ask the same question of you, except to do so would be to engage in an Argumentum ad Hominem combined with a an Argumentum ad Simplicitatem, and also a non-sequitur (which is not a great way to begin an argument), since you seem to think your view is the only possible “Simple Bible Teaching,” when in reality Sola Scriptura Christians do not agree on this subject at all.
Thus, we find the fallacy of Argumentum ad Simplicitatem, and this becomes particularly unpleasant when coupled with the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy directed not only at myself, but at the very large number of Christians, well over a billion, who reject the credobaptist position, and who instead believe in baptismal regeneration (that baptism is the means of being born again), a group including 290 million from my own denomination (which is presently the second largest denominational, and the other top 5 groupings (Roman Catholicism, and then Anglicanism in the no. 3 position with 120 million, followed by Lutheranism with I think around 90 million and Calvinism (Reformed and Presbyterian churches) with around 74 million, as well as the approximately 60 million members of the Oriental Orthodox communion and the 1.5 million members of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, both the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches having endured such terrible persecution in recent years from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, along with the Antiochian Orthodox Church (which is Eastern Orthodox).
At any rate, you claim to only be following the Bible, but numerous other Christians who very definitely were only following Scripture, for example, Karl Barth, and the Congregationalists of New England such as Jonathan Edward, and the Covenanting Presbyterians of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland and in Ireland and North America, came to completely different conclusions regarding baptism and infant baptism. Indeed my Reformed friend
@bbbbbbb rejects infant baptism.
So it is clear that your interpretation of Scripture is not as obvious as you suggest, but rather, this claim constitutes a non-sequitur.
Now, as a Christian presbyter, I am required to know the contents of the Gospels, and thus were it not Lent and were I not charitably disposed I might take offense at your suggestion that I “go back and read John 3”, particularly considering that in your post you failed to address John ch. 3 v. 5, which becomes something of an elephant in the room with respect to your argument. This constitutes eisegesis and is also another non-sequitur, and also an ad hominem insofar as your argument implies that I am unfamiliar with the third chapter of The Gospel According to St. John the Theologian.
Ergo, the manner in which you present your supposed “simple Scriptural truth” depends on a selective eisegesis rather than the proper exegesis of the entire New Testament text, since you are relying on individual proof texts in isolation, and even appear to be glossing over portions of those proof texts that could undermine your position:
As noted previously in all of the above, you fail to quote John 3 verse 5. What is more, your conclusions about what is meant by the dialogue with St. Nicodemus are Non-Sequiturs, and also constitutes a Reduction Fallacy insofar as you admit only one possible interpretation of the text, which is clearly not the case.
Christ our True God, in John 3:5 very clearly says that we must be born again of Water and the Spirit. This text, we believe, refers to Baptism. In addition, we have 1 John 5:7-9, and numerous other texts, as well as the narratives of the Baptism of our Lord in the Jordan.
This is not inconsistent with John 3:16 or the Dialogue with St. Nicodemus; on the contrary, the doctrinal position of those churches such as mine which hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is that those who believe in our Lord will be saved, but their salvation requires the pursuit of being born again in the baptismal font, because Christ teaches the neccessity of baptism, and baptism is obviously the second birth, in that in baptism, what St. Paul describes as the “old man” is put to death, as St. Paul teaches is necessary, and the “new man” emerges from the font.
It is also clear that the text in question is compatible with our interpretation (which as a matter of historical record is also the only documented Patristic interpretation of the text in question), which is why I assert that your insistence this text contradicts baptismal regeneration is both a non-sequitur and a reduction fallacy. Now, I don’t believe that the text in question is compatible with the credobaptist position, however, the risk of a reduction fallacy becomes great when one says that a text must not mean X but rather can only mean Y, when a very large number of people believe it means X, and indeed, St. Irenaeus of Lyons argued that the Bible can be interpreted in different and incorrect ways, and likened this to rearranging the pieces of a mosaic that depicted a King, so that the mosaic would depict a dog or a fox. For this reason, I normally refrain from accusing Calvinism of being unscriptural, even though I no longer subscribe to it (although I am sympathetic towards it and like many Calvinist churches), because it is clear to me that for the most part, the text supports a Calvinist interpretation, and so if I were to assert that the scriptural text itself was contrary to all of Calvinism and all subsequent developments of Reformed and Presbyterian theology, this would constitute a serious reduction fallacy and consequently, a logical non-sequitur. In the case of the Credobaptist position, I am less hesitant to categorize it as contrary to scripture, but am reticent to make such an argument publically, lest it appear to Credobaptists that I am engaging in a reduction fallacy and concomitant non-sequitur by virtue of dismissing outright the logical integrity of their scriptural interpretation.
To put it another way, it is not logical to assert that there is only one possible interpretation of the Holy Bible, but one can assert that a given interpretation is superior to other interpretations. I myself regard continuity with the writings of the Apostolic and Nicene Fathers and also the shared faith of the traditional liturgical churches to be a good way to do that.
So, in summary, the argument you made opens with an ad simplicitatem fallacy combined with an ad hominem fallacy and continues with a non-sequitur, and then employs scriptural eisegesis and a reduction fallacy, and can thus be rejected as invalid both in terms of logic and hermeneutical consistency. Additionally, it suffers from being delivered in a manner that is deeply disrespectful towards the faith of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, Methodists, Assyrians, Moravians, and Roman Catholics, and all other churches, denominations, communions and denominational groupings that accept, in whole or in part, either the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and/or the baptism of infants.
+
By the way, I want to make it clear that my argument here is specifically a rejection of your criticism of my faith and your argument to the extent that only the position you adhere to is the simple and obvious teaching of the Bible, which in my view is very obviously not the case, and furthermore the manner in which you delivered the argument was patronizing and condescending and would have caused offense to many members of ChristianForums. The reason furthermore I am specifically seeking to refute your argument is one based in loving charity, because I believe you are unaware as to how your argument came across, and obviously you would not want to cause offense, which is a risk when making such an argument, and attacking someone’s faith in such a severe manner, and also with such eisegetical and fallacious arguments.
Thus, in seeking to refute your argument, I am not seeking to undermine the faith of all Baptist members of the forum. Indeed, one of my direct ancestors was the first baptist minister in America, and I get along very well with a number of traditional Baptists who are well educated with regards to Scripture, for example, my pious colleague
@Der Alte , who is a Baptist minister I greatly respect despite disagreeing with him on this issue, but in his case I regard it as an extremely minor disagreement, since the fact that we disagree over baptism has never caused animosity. Likewise I regard the Southern Baptist divine* Dr. Albert Mohler as the foremost teacher of moral theology in Western Christianity since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in 2007, following a severe heart attack after Christmas in 2006. I did have the pleasure of seeing Dr. Kennedy preach in person, and he was immensely talented at homiletics, and the liturgical music at his church was exquisite. Dr. Albert Mohler I have not encountered in person, but I should love to see him preach at some point, and I greatly respect his work, particularly in opposition to abortion and sexual immorality.