There are some who believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation based on a handful of Scriptures.
Baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that baptism results in regeneration of the subject baptized. Usually based upon John 3:5 and Titus 3:5.
I have concluded that Baptismal Regeration is a work added to Salvation and consider it a different Gospel.
Studying these scriptures and reading commentaries shed much light for me on this subject. I turn to men of God who are fluent in the original languages and understand hermeneutics more than I ever can.
There are many different interpretations of this verse including two births (physical and spiritual), water as a symbol for Holy Spirit or the word of God. I would like to focus on what some would believe is Baptismal Regenration (born of water).
There are other Scriptures that can be addressed as well.
This should be a good start.
John 3:5 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 does not teach Baptismal Regeneration. In fact, it is not even referring to baptism! In John 3, Jesus makes the statement that, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God” (3:3). In response, Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3:4). Jesus’ answer is, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (3:5). In the context of this conversation it is more natural to understand Jesus’ use of the word “water” as a reference to physical birth rather than baptism. As every mother knows, all children are literally born “out of water.” Therefore, when Nicodemus asked, “Can a man be born a second time from his mother’s womb?” Jesus in essence conceded that a man had to be born of water, that is, physically. Yet, He went on to insist that the second birth was spiritual in nature. Thus, John 3 does not teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation. It teaches that physical birth is. In other words, a person must be born before he can be born again. John 3:6 confirms this view, saying “that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” That says it all.
[1]Chafer Theological Seminary. (1997; 2002). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 3
Carson has an excellent argument against this interpretation writing that "If water = baptism is so important for entering the kingdom, it is surprising that the rest of the discussion never mentions it again: the entire focus is on the work of the Spirit (v. 8), the work of the Son (vv. 14–15), the work of God himself (vv. 16–17), and the place of faith (vv. 15–16)....The Spirit plays a powerful role in John 14–16; 20:22, but there is no hint of baptism.....The entire view seems to rest on an unarticulated prejudice that every mention of water evoked instant recognition, in the minds of first-century readers, that the real reference was to baptism, but it is very doubtful that this prejudice can be sustained by the sources. Even so, this conclusion does not preclude the possibility of a secondary allusion to baptism" Borrow The Gospel according to John)
J M Boice - Unfortunately, this is not substantiated either by the text or by biblical theology. The text says nothing at all about baptism, and the Bible elsewhere teaches that no one is saved by any external rite of religion (1 Sam. 16:7; Rom. 2:28–29; Gal. 2:15, 16; 5:1–6). Baptism is a sign of what has already taken place, but it is not the agent by which it takes place.(Boice - The Gospel of John)
Kenneth Wuest - Others interpret the word “water” as referring to the rite of water baptism. But we submit that this is pure eisegesis, reading into the text something that is not there. Surely, the word “water” in itself, does not include within its meaning the idea of baptism. Furthermore, the only proper recipient of water baptism is one who has already been born again, the new-birth preceding water baptism, not the rite preceding the new birth. Again, the question arises as to how such a supernatural change as regeneration produces, could be the result of a mere ceremony.
MacArthur - Others see in the phrase born of water a reference to baptism, either that of John the Baptist, or Christian baptism. But Nicodemus would not have understood Christian baptism (which did not yet exist) nor misunderstood John the Baptist’s baptism. Nor would Jesus have refrained from baptizing people (Jn 4:2) if baptism were necessary for salvation. (See John Commentary - What Does It Mean to be Born of Water and Spirit?)
Baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that baptism results in regeneration of the subject baptized. Usually based upon John 3:5 and Titus 3:5.
I have concluded that Baptismal Regeration is a work added to Salvation and consider it a different Gospel.
Studying these scriptures and reading commentaries shed much light for me on this subject. I turn to men of God who are fluent in the original languages and understand hermeneutics more than I ever can.
There are many different interpretations of this verse including two births (physical and spiritual), water as a symbol for Holy Spirit or the word of God. I would like to focus on what some would believe is Baptismal Regenration (born of water).
There are other Scriptures that can be addressed as well.
This should be a good start.
John 3:5 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 does not teach Baptismal Regeneration. In fact, it is not even referring to baptism! In John 3, Jesus makes the statement that, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God” (3:3). In response, Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3:4). Jesus’ answer is, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (3:5). In the context of this conversation it is more natural to understand Jesus’ use of the word “water” as a reference to physical birth rather than baptism. As every mother knows, all children are literally born “out of water.” Therefore, when Nicodemus asked, “Can a man be born a second time from his mother’s womb?” Jesus in essence conceded that a man had to be born of water, that is, physically. Yet, He went on to insist that the second birth was spiritual in nature. Thus, John 3 does not teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation. It teaches that physical birth is. In other words, a person must be born before he can be born again. John 3:6 confirms this view, saying “that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” That says it all.
[1]Chafer Theological Seminary. (1997; 2002). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 3
Carson has an excellent argument against this interpretation writing that "If water = baptism is so important for entering the kingdom, it is surprising that the rest of the discussion never mentions it again: the entire focus is on the work of the Spirit (v. 8), the work of the Son (vv. 14–15), the work of God himself (vv. 16–17), and the place of faith (vv. 15–16)....The Spirit plays a powerful role in John 14–16; 20:22, but there is no hint of baptism.....The entire view seems to rest on an unarticulated prejudice that every mention of water evoked instant recognition, in the minds of first-century readers, that the real reference was to baptism, but it is very doubtful that this prejudice can be sustained by the sources. Even so, this conclusion does not preclude the possibility of a secondary allusion to baptism" Borrow The Gospel according to John)
J M Boice - Unfortunately, this is not substantiated either by the text or by biblical theology. The text says nothing at all about baptism, and the Bible elsewhere teaches that no one is saved by any external rite of religion (1 Sam. 16:7; Rom. 2:28–29; Gal. 2:15, 16; 5:1–6). Baptism is a sign of what has already taken place, but it is not the agent by which it takes place.(Boice - The Gospel of John)
Kenneth Wuest - Others interpret the word “water” as referring to the rite of water baptism. But we submit that this is pure eisegesis, reading into the text something that is not there. Surely, the word “water” in itself, does not include within its meaning the idea of baptism. Furthermore, the only proper recipient of water baptism is one who has already been born again, the new-birth preceding water baptism, not the rite preceding the new birth. Again, the question arises as to how such a supernatural change as regeneration produces, could be the result of a mere ceremony.
MacArthur - Others see in the phrase born of water a reference to baptism, either that of John the Baptist, or Christian baptism. But Nicodemus would not have understood Christian baptism (which did not yet exist) nor misunderstood John the Baptist’s baptism. Nor would Jesus have refrained from baptizing people (Jn 4:2) if baptism were necessary for salvation. (See John Commentary - What Does It Mean to be Born of Water and Spirit?)
.
