Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[jasoncran]

so if i lead someone to the lord i shouldnt baptize them? and yes in one church i did baptise. i'm sorry while i do believe in callings to office but at times anyone can do all of the ministries if need be.

think chinese believers. i'm sure they baptise with whomever will and whomever will do the dunking.

 

[Sam21]

If one will take into account that water baptism was NOT exclusive to the church,it was a practice at that time that meant conversion to a cause,you went under the water and died to being a thief and rose to live a Pharisee(or whatever)...it was a SYMBOL of conversion to a cause and was used to mean CONVERSION. Everyone knew that the act of dunking someone under water and bringing them up was nothing but getting wet, it was what it represented that counted(the mental conversion of an individual). So when Paul said you will be saved if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, Paul was speaking of actual conversion that saves, he never mentioned water because being dunked under water cannot save, it is the symbol of conversion only.
An enormous amount of people are in hell because they trusted in water baptism to save them, it just does not work that way, one has to mentally die to oneself and the world and commit totally to God and call upon Jesus to save them...that is the conversion that God will honor. One is not saved by joining an organization, one is personally saved by God by accepting Jesus as Saviour.

 

[Vic C.]

Someone needs to show me where Scripture teaches that baptism is merely an external appearance of an already saved person. I've asked Alabaster and Vic, neither has addressed the point. If you think that's what was taught by the early Church, chapter and verse, baby.

Hey, I gave you the explanation; you refused it. First off, the verse says, "through water", not "by water". How did they get "through the water"? I'd say their means was the ark.

You want verses instead of opting for a study into Christology? : This is not the proper way of going about this. I have seen many denominations, including the RCC and Orthodox, who will take a verse and make an entire doctrine out of it to the point of being dogmatic. They will do this even if it's the ONLY verse that supports such a doctrine and in their effort, ignoring the whole of scripture.

We all need to learn who Jesus was and just as, or even more important, what He did for us.

Ok, there's been a lot of what baptism isn't, but what about what it is? It comes from the Jewish ritual called, mikvah.

"Mayim" - (m., pl. "maimot"); water; involved as a primary element on the Second and on the Third Days of Creation; when G-d separated the "upper" from the "lower" waters, and when G-d gathered them into one place, calling them "Yamim," Seas.

A human being is delivered at birth in a bag of waters; some say that one never forgets this experience; to drink water is one of the primary needs of life.

In Biblical and Temple times, the method of becoming spiritually "clean" after having become spiritually "unclean;" for example, by contact with a human corpse, involved being sprinkled with the ashes of a "Parah Adumah," a red heifer (cow) (regarded as a Divine decree, without need of explanation, though symbolic meanings have been attached), dissolved in water.

Another necessary ingredient in the process of regaining purity was and is immersion in a "Mikvah," a pool of "mayim chayim," "living (non-stagnant) waters." The word "Mikvah" is based on the root "hope." In the absence of a Mikvah, the ocean, or a river or a flowing lake will serve...

Judaism 101 - A Glossary of Basic Jewish Terms and Concepts

Interesting... it says nothing about the pouring of water.

 

[Drew]

IMO Peter isn't saying that water baptism saves.. and if water baptism DID save us, then why in the world would the Apostle to the gentiles (Paul) write to the church and tell them that God did not send him to baptize.. but to preach to gospel.

This only appears to be a contradiction if you believe that the word "gospel" denotes some system of "how you get saved". It does not, even though many today use the term this way.

If we read Paul carefully, we realize that he uses the term "gospel" to denote the message that Jesus Christ is lord of the world, not that "you can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ".

I am not arguing about whether water baptism saves, but pointing out that there is no no inconsistency between belief that water baptism saves, on the one hand, and the preaching of the gospel, on the other.

 

[francisdesales]

You want verses instead of opting for a study into Christology? : This is not the proper way of going about this. I have seen many denominations, including the RCC and Orthodox, who will take a verse and make an entire doctrine out of it to the point of being dogmatic. They will do this even if it's the ONLY verse that supports such a doctrine and in their effort, ignoring the whole of scripture.

There is a problem with this conclusion, Vic...

"RCC" or "Othodox" doctrine NEVER hinges upon "a verse" to create an "entire doctrine". You are in error to believe that Catholic/Orthodox view the "rule of faith" through "sola scriptura". NOTHING we believe is found STRICTLY in the "Bible Alone". There is an ancient saying, "how we pray is how we believe". The liturgy and teaching of the Church ALSO helps to form what we believe - it is not strictly from a "bible alone" paradigm. Doctrines stem from common belief and practice over many years, to include how that Bible is interpreted.

Thus, when the Church teaches something, rest assured it stems from Divine Revelation of Tradition and Scriptures, not just the Bible alone.

Regards

 

[RoadDebris]

How can baptism be necessary when Paul tells us we don't do anything whatsoever to cause our salvation in any way?

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. - Eph. 2:8-9

 

[farouk]

Peter also says water baptism saves...and were back...

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

d:

1 Peter 3.21-22:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]...eight souls were saved by water. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[/FONT][/FONT]


Having been talking about Noah's Ark, Peter here is talking about the symbol of water, as a sign of deliverance, demonstrating a good conscience toward God. As the verse says, it's not the water itself that cleanses.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[dadof10]

Peter said that water baptism was a "like figure" of Noah being saved by going through the flood and that as Noah was saved through the flood we are saved through baptism(baptism does now save us).

Actually he said that the flood was a "like figure" to baptism, not the other way around. The flood was a symbol of baptism.

According to Thayers:

1) a thing formed after some pattern
2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart
a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21)

Now lets pause for just a moment before we finish the rest of the thought of Peter, the NT is clear that we are saved by FAITH in Christ NOT by being dunked under water,so Peter just made a very misleading statement UNLESS he explains WHAT HE MEANT.

The only reason it's misleading to you is because you are reading this verse and others like it with a "sola-fide" bias. Your working hypothesis is wrong. You've already determined that baptism couldn't possibly be salvific, therefore the verses can't mean what the plain words say, and must be explained away. Tell me what you think about this interpretation:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John (RSV) 3)

Scripture is clear that we are NOT saved by faith alone. Jesus tells the rich, young man that to enter into eternal life, he needs to keep the commandments. Paul tells us that women are saved through childbearing. Peter says baptism saves. And James says flat out that we are NOT justified by faith alone. This verse must, then be interpreted in light of that fact, so "eternal life" must mean something other than Heaven, because Scripture is clear on the fact that we do not get to Heaven by faith alone.

Here is the rest of the thought of Peter about water baptism, Peter said, baptism does now save us NOT(absolute negative)of flesh(the body being water baptized)a putting away of filth(the body being washed of filth in the water)BUT the answer of a good conscience(correct heart condition toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ(faith in what God has provided through Christ.

To interpret in context, we have to look at what Peter was doing here. First of all, verses 18-22 seem to be a tangent from the main point, which is that suffering for doing what's right is a holy thing to do. Peter is not arguing the point that baptism saves, merely mentioning it in passing to emphasize a point. Secondly, he compares the flood to baptism, then CARRIES THE POINT. To interpret properly, this needs to be kept in mind. I have interpreted it in light of this comparison in a previous post so will not do it again here.

So Peter explains what he meant when he said that water baptism saves us, Peter was saying NOT the physical act of being dunked under water because all that can do of itself is wash filth off the flesh(like taking a bath)then Peter further qualifies what he meant by saying BUT(here is what really saves) a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ(faith in Christ).

I think you should look into the sentence structure of these verses a little closer. The NIV puts it this way:

" 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."

As you can see, "by the resurrection..." is HOW BAPTISM SAVES, not how to have a clear conscience.

Here are other versions that agree:

"21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (NASB)

"21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (KJV)

"21 And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (NLT)

There are others, but this should suffice. The bottom line is that, according to these and other Bible scholars, Baptism saves "by (or through) the resurrection..."

If one reads the NT carefully then one can see that water baptism of itself was nothing but a symbol of conversion, to actually have faith in the symbol is the depth of folly, our faith has to be 100% in Christ and His sacrifice or we will not be forgiven period.

All you have to do is PROVE that baptism is a "symbol of conversion" to make your point. I keep waiting for someone to show me a verse that actually says this. No one has because one doesn't exist. Put "symbolic baptism" in the category of "Man Made Doctrine", right along side sola-fide, sola-scripture and invisible church.

The constant teaching of the Church and Scripture says that baptism is salvific, not symbolic.

 

[Alabaster]

No, the consistent message we receive in Scripture is that baptism is for those who are already saved. It is not salvific, but is symbolic of the work done by Jesus Christ by dying, being buried and by His resurrection, and how we identify with that death burial and resurrection in our very lives.

 

[dadof10]

I tried to make a simple point Dad.. being that IF water baptism WAS absolutely without question NECESSARY for SALVATION, then why in the world would Paul write that God didn't send him to baptize.. that would be insane if water baptism IS NECESSARY for salvation... wouldn't you agree..?

God didn't send him to baptize because He SENT OTHERS TO BAPTIZE. Remember, Paul was a traveling preacher who founded communities then left. Once communities were established, the early Church required catechesis before baptism, which took time. Others would teach the converts, finish their training, then baptize them. Again, because Paul only baptized a few doesn't speak to his views on baptism. It wasn't his ministry.

You are laboring under the false doctrine of sola-scriptura. Paul's letters never claim to give the fullness of the Gospel, so there are things that he didn't get around to addressing personally in writing. He left those things to the teaching body of the Church founded by Christ.

Read your bible... each and EVERY CASE of water baptism in scripture involves BELIEVERS... not one unbeliever baptized.

I may be assuming too much in your case, Eventide. I assume you believe that baptism is a merely symbolic act performed on already saved people, which I responded to. True, believers are baptized.

 

[dadof10]

If one will take into account that water baptism was NOT exclusive to the church,it was a practice at that time that meant conversion to a cause,you went under the water and died to being a thief and rose to live a Pharisee(or whatever)...it was a SYMBOL of conversion to a cause and was used to mean CONVERSION. Everyone knew that the act of dunking someone under water and bringing them up was nothing but getting wet, it was what it represented that counted(the mental conversion of an individual). So when Paul said you will be saved if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, Paul was speaking of actual conversion that saves, he never mentioned water because being dunked under water cannot save, it is the symbol of conversion only.

Are you referring to Mikveh, the Jewish custom of ritual cleansing? If so, there are some parallels, but baptism goes beyond Mikveh, the NT tells us so. In Judaism, making a profession of faith didn't save, yet the NT tells us it does. Both baptism and faith go further in Christianity, as they are salvific. You could even say that they are a mere shadow of themselves in Judaism. What the NT DOESN'T tell us is that baptism is "the symbol of conversion only". Not even the Reformers believed this heretical doctrine, do you know why? Because it's not in Scripture!!

An enormous amount of people are in hell because they trusted in water baptism to save them, it just does not work that way,

Wow, that's harsh. How do you know who is and is not in Hell and why? Maybe this verse is right next to the one that says baptism is merely symbolic.

one has to mentally die to oneself and the world and commit totally to God and call upon Jesus to save them...that is the conversion that God will honor. One is not saved by joining an organization, one is personally saved by God by accepting Jesus as Saviour..

True, just not ordinarily saved by "accepting Jesus as Saviour" ONLY, with nothing else required. This is another non-biblical doctrine of man.

 

[Eventide]

God didn't send him to baptize because He SENT OTHERS TO BAPTIZE. Remember, Paul was a traveling preacher who founded communities then left.

I think that you're under estimating Paul's office.. God raised him up to be the Apostle to the GENTILES.. to bring the glorious gospel of Christ to the Gentiles while Israel remains blinded in part.. and his letters are perhaps the most important scriptures for the church of God today because they are addressed specifically TO the church of God.. and yet we read of nothing pertaining to water baptism being necessary for salvation.. whereas he does tell us exactly how we ARE SAVED..

Once communities were established, the early Church required catechesis before baptism, which took time. Others would teach the converts, finish their training, then baptize them. Again, because Paul only baptized a few doesn't speak to his views on baptism. It wasn't his ministry.

Wow, it didn't take the Jailor any time to go through the cathecism.. he was baptized the same night he heard the gospel and was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be SAVED.

You are laboring under the false doctrine of sola-scriptura. Paul's letters never claim to give the fullness of the Gospel, so there are things that he didn't get around to addressing personally in writing. He left those things to the teaching body of the Church founded by Christ.

I was raised Catholic Dad.. and I've seen first hand what all this extra stuff is...

I may be assuming too much in your case, Eventide. I assume you believe that baptism is a merely symbolic act performed on already saved people, which I responded to. True, believers are baptized.

Well, you asked for scriptural references and now you're agreeing that water baptism is for believers.. did you change your mind..?

Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was basically a death sentence for any Jew because it would severe them from the synaguoge and often from members of their own family.. on the other hand, it also identifies for the ASSEMBLY a believer who is willing to demonstrate obedience to the word of God.. because as we read in the first chapters of Acts... it wasn't a walk in the park.. they were most often meeting in secret and behind closed doors.. due to the persecution by the ruling authorities.

 

[dadof10]

Hey, I gave you the explanation; you refused it. First off, the verse says, "through water", not "by water". How did they get "through the water"? I'd say their means was the ark.

Actually, according to Thayers, it's "by water". The word "dia" doesn't denote movement, at least here.

Which sometime 4218 were disobedient 544, when 3753 once 530 the longsuffering 3115 of God 2316 waited 1551 in 1722 the days 2250 of Noah 3575, while the ark 2787 was a preparing 2680, wherein 1519 3739 few 3641, that is 5123, eight 3638 souls 5590 were saved 1295 by 1223 water 5204.

Our exegesis must incorporate the authors intent. You'll have to expound on your view that PETER, HERE IN THESE VERSES, is making the point that the ark prefigures Christ. I don't see it.

You want verses instead of opting for a study into Christology? :
This is not the proper way of going about this.

Using the holy author's exact words to formulate Christology is not proper? Isn't this HOW you study Christology, or baptismal theology, or any other theological topic?

I have seen many denominations, including the RCC and Orthodox, who will take a verse and make an entire doctrine out of it to the point of being dogmatic. They will do this even if it's the ONLY verse that supports such a doctrine and in their effort, ignoring the whole of scripture.

The ONLY verse? Please...

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John (RSV) 3)

This is an obvious reference to water baptism because right after this episode, Jesus went and BAPTIZED.

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. 23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been put in prison. (John (RSV) 3)

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans (RSV) 6)

Buried with Him by baptism, so we too, like Christ, might walk in the newness of life. Sounds like salvation to me.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians (RSV) 2)

Here baptism is mentioned right along with faith.

but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. (Titus (RSV) 3)

"He saved us...by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit." I'm sure your aware of all the verses in Acts that link water baptism and the "renewal in the Holy Spirit", so I won't post them here. Suffice it to say that water baptism as a salvific act is the clear teaching of Scripture, whereas water baptism as a mere symbolic act is NONEXISTENT.

We all need to learn who Jesus was and just as, or even more important, what He did for us.

Amen, and one thing He did for us was found a Church and send His Holy Spirit to guide her, so we would have answers to questions like these instead of endless "interpretations" and arguments and splits about what Scripture teaches.

Ok, there's been a lot of what baptism isn't, but what about what it is? It comes from the Jewish ritual called, mikvah.

Judaism 101 - A Glossary of Basic Jewish Terms and Concepts

Interesting... it says nothing about the pouring of water.

So, baptism by submersion saves, but pouring doesn't? Is your point that in the Catholic Church the form is wrong and if it was right it would be salvific? I don't know where your going with this.

 

[dadof10]

This only appears to be a contradiction if you believe that the word "gospel" denotes some system of "how you get saved". It does not, even though many today use the term this way.

If we read Paul carefully, we realize that he uses the term "gospel" to denote the message that Jesus Christ is lord of the world, not that "you can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ".

I am not arguing about whether water baptism saves, but pointing out that there is no no inconsistency between belief that water baptism saves, on the one hand, and the preaching of the gospel, on the other.

Water baptism is PART of the gospel, so how could it be contrary to it?

 

[dadof10]

How can baptism be necessary when Paul tells us we don't do anything whatsoever to cause our salvation in any way?

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. - Eph. 2:8-9

Because the word "works" here and elsewhere refers to "works of the law" not everything except faith. Baptism, keeping the commandments, sacrifice, etc. are not works. Drew can explain this concept in greater detail and with greater clarity than I can.

 

[dadof10]

d:

1 Peter 3.21-22:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]...eight souls were saved by water. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[/FONT][/FONT]


Having been talking about Noah's Ark, Peter here is talking about the symbol of water, as a sign of deliverance, demonstrating a good conscience toward God. As the verse says, it's not the water itself that cleanses.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]

That is quite creative and not at all what the text says. The flood waters symbolize "baptism, which now saves you...[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]by the resurrection of Jesus Christ[/FONT][/FONT]". That is pretty straightforward and, unless you come into Scripture with a bias, it simply says water baptism saves.

Where does Scripture call baptism merely "symbolic"? If it doesn't, then it must be rejected by "sola-scriptura" Protestants, correct?

 

[dadof10]

No, the consistent message we receive in Scripture is that baptism is for those who are already saved. It is not salvific, but is symbolic of the work done by Jesus Christ by dying, being buried and by His resurrection, and how we identify with that death burial and resurrection in our very lives.

Are you going to back up your contention with Scripture this time, or just keep saying "No, it's symbolic"? When you're ready to prove your ridiculous, non-biblical view post the verses or the reason why ALL OTHER DOCTRINE must be contained within Scripture BUT baptism.....oh...and sola-scriptura...and sola-fide....and invisible church...

 

[dadof10]

I think that you're under estimating Paul's office.. God raised him up to be the Apostle to the GENTILES.. to bring the glorious gospel of Christ to the Gentiles while Israel remains blinded in part.. and his letters are perhaps the most important scriptures for the church of God today because they are addressed specifically TO the church of God..

Is everything Paul taught contained within his letters? Of course not. Nowhere in the history of Christianity do we find the concept that everything Paul believed and taught is contained within the pages of his letters.

and yet we read of nothing pertaining to water baptism being necessary for salvation.. whereas he does tell us exactly how we ARE SAVED..

In my post to Vic, I list three places in Paul's letters where he refers to the salvific power of water baptism. He did indeed teach it. What he DIDN'T teach was the view that water baptism was merely symbolic.

Wow, it didn't take the Jailor any time to go through the cathecism.. he was baptized the same night he heard the gospel and was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be SAVED.

Yes, that's what I meant by "Once a community was established..." There are many examples within Scripture of the miraculous happening due to the times. This doesn't speak to the fact that the NORM within the early Church was catechesis. It also doesn't speak to the point that Paul's ministry was primarily one of preaching, and that fact has nothing to do with his views on baptism.

I was raised Catholic Dad.. and I've seen first hand what all this extra stuff is...

Extra stuff not in Scripture, like sola-fide, sola-scriptura and symbolic baptism?

Well, you asked for scriptural references and now you're agreeing that water baptism is for believers.. did you change your mind..?

No. I think you're confused because of your understanding of the word "believers". Belief, like salvation, is an ongoing process, not a one time event. For an adult, the norm is belief then baptism because, for baptism to be efficacious, it must be accompanied by belief.

Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was basically a death sentence for any Jew because it would severe them from the synaguoge and often from members of their own family.. on the other hand, it also identifies for the ASSEMBLY a believer who is willing to demonstrate obedience to the word of God.. because as we read in the first chapters of Acts... it wasn't a walk in the park.. they were most often meeting in secret and behind closed doors.. due to the persecution by the ruling authorities.

This sounds a lot like "merely symbolic", which I prematurely responded to before and is not taught in Scripture.

 

[Jacy]

I find it interesting as I read through these discussions how easy we as humans can be swayed by what "feels right" and be led away from what the scripture says...I don't mean using the scripture to justify your own beliefs, but why are we forgetting what Jesus Himself said?

"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." John 3:5

Water baptism is not a symbol of salvation; it is a necessity. If you look up the definition of baptism, it means full immersion, which is your entire body going under the water and coming back up. Water baptism is for the remission of your sins and the sins of people who have wronged you.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:36-38

If water baptism was not necessary, Peter would not have included that when he was answering the people who wanted to be saved on the day of Pentecost. I use the King James version of the Bible because it is the most authentic to the original texts. Every single word in a verse has significance; we cannot dismiss something just because we do not understand it.

"Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." John 4:13-14

"But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized" Mark 10:38-39

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Colossians 2:8-12

 

[Alabaster]

When one really looks closely at Jesus`words to Nicodemus, one will see that He is contrasting physical birth (water) with spiritual rebirth.

In Palestine, the colloquial for giving birth used the word, 'water' as the act of delivery.

Jesus said that we must be born (of water, physically) and we must be born of the Spirit.

There is no mention of baptism as integral.