You are attempting to divert. What does the baptism of Jesus have to do with this issue?If water was all they needed to be saved, then Jesus baptism was just a waste of time.
You are attempting to divert. What does the baptism of Jesus have to do with this issue?If water was all they needed to be saved, then Jesus baptism was just a waste of time.
I'm not a 5 point Calvinist and the water you are looking for in John 3:5 is found in John 4:10,14; 7:37-39. The natural man can only understand natural H20.And Calvinists would swim an ocean of amniotic fluid just to escape the simple truth of John 3.
#1: "And if baptism was necessary for salvation, we would not have this statement by Paul (1 Cor 1:17): For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
Again, are we sure of this statement?
IMO 1 Cor. 1: 17 has nothing to do with the validity of baptism and everything to do with the claim of some to have been baptized by various ones and creating controversy about a non-issue.
God bless
And I am not a Campbellite. We do not need to search far to know what water Jesus is speaking of, unless that water does not fit your theology. You see a metaphoric use of water because you have to, not because of any verbiage. Yes, John 4 and 7 use metaphoric language for water, this is clear by the verbiage used. But these two verses are not tied by verbiage, time or place to John 3.I'm not a 5 point Calvinist and the water you are looking for in John 3:5 is found in John 4:10,14; 7:37-39. The natural man can only understand natural H20.
And I am not a Campbellite. We do not need to search far to know what water Jesus is speaking of, unless that water does not fit your theology. You see a metaphoric use of water because you have to, not because of any verbiage. Yes, John 4 and 7 use metaphoric language for water, this is clear by the verbiage used. But these two verses are not tied by verbiage, time or place to John 3.
The natural man can only understand his own sensibilities.
In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. *Perfect harmony*And I am not a Campbellite. We do not need to search far to know what water Jesus is speaking of, unless that water does not fit your theology. You see a metaphoric use of water because you have to, not because of any verbiage. Yes, John 4 and 7 use metaphoric language for water, this is clear by the verbiage used. But these two verses are not tied by verbiage, time or place to John 3.
The natural man can only understand his own sensibilities.
agreed.....I really wish those "no baptism" folks would quit using this out of context scripture. If you read the whole passage, it is crystal clear to the simplest of readers that Paul is talking about the issue of believers bragging about "who" baptized them. "I'm better than you because PAUL baptized me", or "I was baptized by PHILIP, so I'm somehow a better believer than you"....
These petty arguments were causing problems in the early church, and Paul was telling them that WHO baptizes you does not matter in the least.... and saying, "man, I'm glad I didn't perform the baptism on but just a few of you, because Jesus didn't send me to see how large a number of people I personally can baptize.... MY job is to teach the gospel, and the other guys can do the actual baptism".....
If Paul saw no need for baptism, please explain to me why the FIRST thing he did, upon regaining his sight (after being blinded, and having nothing to eat for 3 DAYS) was to get up and be baptized. Before eating. Before anything else.... he was baptized.... Sounds pretty unimportant to Paul, doesn't it?![]()
In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. *Perfect harmony*
In John 3:5, Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. Notice in John 7:38-39, "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.
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. Once again, the natural man just cannot understand.
and He would have given you living water.
out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER.
Water is not defined as anything but water unless verbiage is used to change its meaning, hence "living waters". Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, "unless one is born of living water and spirit".If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism
#173 Not only is place different, so is the time and the participants and the conversation.
John 4 is clearly speaking of " living water" which is identified as the Spirit in John 7.
John 3 is speaking of water and the Spirit; if John 3: 5 is living water then you have Jesus saying "you must be born of Spirit and the Spirit." Kind of redundant and deserving of a double wow.
I have always heard that the first rule if Bible interpretation is to take the passage literally unless the context indicates otherwise.
God bless
I have always heard that the first rule if Bible interpretation is to take the passage literally unless the context indicates otherwise
For the followers of faith alone regeneration theology the first rule of interpretation is if the verse does not fit your sensibilities , twist it until you find a way to make it "harmonize" your theology.
For the followers of faith alone regeneration theology the first rule of interpretation is if the verse does not fit your sensibilities , twist it until you find a way to make it "harmonize" your theology.
Living water is a reference to spiritual washing or purification of the soul that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the word of God at the moment of salvation, which is required to become born again which means "born from above" and enter the kingdom of God.Living waters is a metaphoric use of water.
What I see is you ignoring the obvious for the sake of accommodating your biased church doctrine. In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.Both of your verses are metaphoric. "Did you see that"?
Jesus uses the word "water" in John 4:10,14 and qualifies what He means by it -- "living water." Jesus uses the word "water" not the term "baptism" in John 3:5 and since Jesus connects "living water" with receiving everlasting life in John 4:10,14; 7:37-39, it makes much more sense that water in John 3:5 is living water, rather than plain ordinary H20, which does not flow through our heart and has no power to cleanse the heart.Jesus uses the word "water" not the term "living waters" in John 3:5.
Jesus clearly qualifies what He meant by "water" in John 4:10,14 as "living water" and connects it with receiving everlasting life, so why would it be any different in John 3:5 in which water is connected to becoming born again and entering the kingdom of God? Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, "unless one is born of baptism and the Spirit."Water is not defined as anything but water unless verbiage is used to change its meaning, hence "living waters". Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, "unless one is born of living water and spirit".
Actually, you are "shoe-horning" the word "baptism" in John 3:5 much like you "shoe horn" the word "baptism" in John 3:16. The Bible clearly states in John 3:16 and many other passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8 etc..).You are shoehorning the word "living" in John 3:5 much like you shoehorn "alone" in John 3:16 and others.
It's you who is putting words in verses (using your shoe horn) that are not there. I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture (John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39).Isn't it easier to just accept John 3:5. John 4:10 and John 7:37 as written? If you don't want the water in John 3:5 to mean H20 fine. But don't put words in verses that are not there. I accept the word baptism is not in John 3:5 ut I am not altering its meaning by adding "living" as you have done.
Oh the IRONY. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.Once again, the natural man cannot see pass his own sensibilities.
For the followers of baptismal regeneration theology the first rule of interpretation is to not only "shoe horn" baptism "into" believes in Him/salvation through faith, but also go about distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.For the followers of faith alone regeneration theology the first rule of interpretation is if the verse does not fit your sensibilities, twist it until you find a way to make it "harmonize" your theology.
Your 5 step plan of salvation comes straight out of Campbellism. Your theology has originated with men, namely THOMAS CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, WALTER SCOTT, and BARTON W. STONE. Did these men actually "restore" the gospel, the church, and true New Testament worship, as they claim, or did they simply create another sect bent on a more dogmatic sectarianism than others they renounced?And I am not a Campbellite.
Living water is a reference to spiritual washing or purification of the soul that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the word of God at the moment of salvation, which is required to become born again which means "born from above" and enter the kingdom of God.
Water is also used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. Baptism does not avail to cleanse the heart from defilement, but our Lord did say, "Now ye are clean through the word (not through plain ordinary H20) which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3).
In Ephesians 5:26, we see washing of water by the word (not by plain ordinary H20).
Also in 1 Peter 1:22, we read - having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God (not through plain ordinary H20) which lives and abides forever
What I see is you ignoring the obvious for the sake of accommodating your biased church doctrine. In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.
*So Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. *Perfect harmony*
Jesus uses the word "water" in John 4:10,14 and qualifies what He means by it -- "living water." Jesus uses the word "water" not the term "baptism" in John 3:5 and since Jesus connects "living water" with receiving everlasting life in John 4:10,14; 7:37-39, it makes much more sense that water in John 3:5 is living water, rather than plain ordinary H20, which does not flow through our heart and has no power to cleanse the heart.
Jesus clearly qualifies what He meant by "water" in John 4:10,14 as "living water" and connects it with receiving everlasting life, so why would it be any different in John 3:5 in which water is connected to becoming born again and entering the kingdom of God? Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, "unless one is born of baptism and the Spirit."
*Once again, 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.
Actually, you are "shoe-horning" the word "baptism" in John 3:5 much like you "shoe horn" the word "baptism" in John 3:16. The Bible clearly states in John 3:16 and many other passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8 etc..).
You don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus baptism, plus works? NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE.
It's you who is putting words in verses (using your shoe horn) that are not there. I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture (John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39).
Oh the IRONY. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.