This actually helps my claim. First birth is natural by a mother. Again is by both water AND Spirit. Our faith is in Christ not the water, otherwise it would be only natural.
Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
- Status
Actually it has everything thing to do with being born of water.
No such scripture says born again of water.
The context and explanation is found in verse 26.
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:5-6
- Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus plainly explains what He means by “born of water” and “born of the Spirit”.
- That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Born of water - That which is born of the flesh
Born of Spirit - that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Very simple, even a Pharisee could understand.
Yes, born of water is the natural birth. MacArthur said that the point is that you have no contribution to your spiritual birth as much as youhave no contribution to your natural birth, you can't earn it, inherit it, steal it or buy it, the Holy Spirit comes and goes as it wishes like the wind.
The idea that being "born of water" in John 3:5 refers to natural birth, we must first examine Nicodemus' confusion (He did not naturally understand otherwise why Question) and the context of the passage. Nicodemus, in his conversation with Jesus, clearly did not understand the concept of being "born again." His question, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4) shows that he was thinking purely in terms of natural birth (Not what Jesus is teaching here). If Nicodemus had understood "born of water" as referring to natural birth, there would have been no need for him to ask such a question. His confusion reveals that he did not grasp the deeper spiritual meaning Jesus was teaching.
Jesus responds to Nicodemus by saying, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The use of the word "except/unless" is significant here. It implies that being born of both water and Spirit is a requirement for entering the Kingdom of God. If “born of water” referred merely to natural birth, this statement would be redundant. Since everyone has already experienced natural birth, there would be no need for Jesus to say "unless." The condition Jesus presents would make no sense if natural birth were the meaning of being “born of water.” This shows that “born of water” must be referring to something more than physical birth—namely, water baptism.
In the New Testament, water is frequently associated with baptism, not natural birth. For example, Acts 2:38 connects baptism to the remission of sins, and Mark 16:16 ties belief and baptism to salvation. These verses clearly indicate that water baptism plays a vital role in the salvation process, which aligns with Jesus' teaching in John 3:5. Additionally, we cannot ignore the context of John the Baptist's ministry. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance with water, preparing the way for Jesus’ ministry, which would involve both water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This points to the fact that Jesus was referring to the spiritual process of being born again through water baptism, rather than natural birth.
Furthermore, Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 unites water and Spirit as a single experience essential for entering the Kingdom of God. Suggesting that “born of water” refers to natural birth would break this unity and separate the two elements of spiritual transformation. Both water baptism in Jesus' name and the infilling of the Holy Spirit are integral to the believer’s new birth experience. To interpret “born of water” as natural birth would undermine the necessity of baptism and contradict the spiritual nature of Jesus’ teaching.
In conclusion, interpreting “born of water” as referring to natural birth does not fit with the context of John 3 or the broader scriptural teachings on salvation. If Nicodemus had understood “born of water” as natural birth, he would not have asked his question about being physically born again. Jesus’ use of the word “unless” further shows that He was referring to a necessary condition that not everyone has already fulfilled. Thus, “born of water” refers to water baptism, and being “born again” involves both water and Spirit, which are essential for entering the Kingdom of God. This interpretation preserves the integrity of Jesus’ teaching and aligns with the New Testament's overall emphasis on the transformative power of baptism and the Holy Spirit.
And water.
Rebirth has nothing to do with water, as rebirth is by the Spirit.
My faith is in Christ, and how He provided for our rebirth through the death of the old man and resurrection with Christ at our "immersion" into Christ and His death and burial. (Rom 6:3-7)
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:" (Rom 6:5)
The tone of Nicodemus's first question was a mix of sarcasm and confusion. Please note that he wasn't thinking about "born of water" YET, as he was responding to Jesus's teaching in 3:3 - "UNLESS one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." No water mentioned in there, Jesus didn't say at first what kind of birth He was talking about, which led to a brief misunderstanindg, as Nicodemus challenged the concept of "born again" by ridiculing Jesus. In 3:5, Jesus made a distinction between natural birth and spiritual birth, He did NOT change the subject to water baptism like you did. 3:5 is both a clarification of 3:3 and a response to 3:4, the second birth therein is specifically defined now as spiritual birth which is different from natural birth, that's why "UNLESS" is repeated, it's not redundant. Not everyone gets to experience natural birth, abortion, miscarriage and stillborn are more common than you think. After that, Nicodemus dug into the concept of "spiritual birth", and this time Jesus kind of mocked him in 3:10 - "are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" That is the natural flow and logic of the conversation, which any legitimate interpretation must adhere to. Plucking out a verse or two to promote a theology unrelated to the original topic is a disservice.
In conclusion, what really doesn't fit in the context of John 3 is water baptism. If water baptism were necessary for salvation, then that would be work-based false religion.
Nettles states, “Baptism itself does not remove the damnable filth but expresses one’s confidence that only the propitiatory death of Christ saves,” and that Baptism is a “clear symbol of the saving reality…” (28)Yet the Greek text cannot be denied for what it states. The Greek makes a clear declaration that νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, or Baptism now saves. This βάπτισμα is said to now [νῦν]save [σῴζει]. σῴζει occurs in the present indicative active, meaning that it is currently saving. It is not restricted to a specific one time event. Rather, this Baptism now and still and will save.
Willis: The Big Bad Baptism Verse, 1 Peter 3:21
We are reaching the end of my Baptism series soon, which means I will then move on to mental health and sin, connecting everything together. Here we have one of the most important verses in all of …
thelutherancolumn.com
Agreed.
As water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins is not part of the Law, it cannot be a "works" based doctrine.
And as Jesus commanded man to baptize others, baptism is necessary for salvation. (Mark 16:16, Matt 28:19, Luke 24:47)
No it's not, it's adding work to faith. We've had long debate on this, I won't go over it again.
Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
BTW, the only works written against for salvation were the "works of the Law".
Circumcision, dietary rules, sabbath keeping feast keeping, tithing, etc. will not garner salvation.
Obeying Jesus will result in salvation, and He commanded that we baptize.
Baptize in the holy spirit, not water. The only effect of water baptism is getting you wet. Also, salvation results in obediance, not the other way around.
We can't baptize in the Holy Spirit, as the gift of the Holy Ghost is a gift from God.
And baptism in water, if it is in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, not only remits past sins, (Acts 2:38,22:16), but allows our participation in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection so we can walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-4)
It is also the means of the old man's destruction, so we can be new creatures ! (Rom 6:6)
Thanks be to God !
No, Jesus baptizes in Holy Spirit and fire, Matt. 3:11, that's the baptism that saves. What is impossible for man is possible for God.
In response to the claim that baptism is an addition of "works" to faith, it is important to clarify from a biblical and doctrinal perspective that water baptism in Jesus' name is not a work of human merit but an act of obedience and faith in response to God's command. This view aligns with the Apostolic doctrine that water baptism is essential for salvation, as commanded by Jesus.
The idea that baptism is a “work” comes from a misunderstanding of what the Bible refers to as works of the Law (such as circumcision, animal sacrifices, or other ceremonial laws). In the New Testament, water baptism is not treated as a legalistic ritual of the Law but as a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter makes this clear in 1 Peter 3:21, where he explains that baptism "saves" not by washing away dirt from the body, but as "the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Baptism is therefore an expression of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and obedience to His command, not a human "work" for merit.
Jesus explicitly commanded baptism as part of the salvation process:
Mark 16:16 (KJV): "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Matthew 28:19 (KJV): Jesus instructs His disciples to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (This means baptizing in the name of Jesus because the name refers to the one saving name of God—Jesus.)
Luke 24:47 (KJV): "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Baptism, according to Jesus' teachings, is essential for the remission of sins and is part of the salvation experience. Faith and baptism are intertwined, as baptism is the outward act that corresponds to an inward faith. The argument that baptism adds "works" to faith misunderstands that faith without action is incomplete (James 2:17). Obeying the command to be baptized is a step of faith and part of the Salvation process Acts 2:38 to a specific question asked in Acts 2:37.
Acts 22:16 (KJV): Paul is told, "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that baptism is directly connected to washing away sins.
If baptism were merely a "work" and not essential, it would contradict these clear instructions that baptism in Jesus' name is part of the salvation experience. The Apostles preached baptism as an act of faith in Jesus' name for the remission of sins, not as an optional work.
In Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV), Paul writes, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." While salvation is by grace through faith, faith must be lived out through obedience to God’s commands. Baptism is part of this response, but it is not something we boast about as a "work" we accomplish. Rather, it is an acknowledgment of God's grace and a response to His call to salvation.
Baptism is not a "work" in the sense of a legalistic action or a human effort to earn salvation. Instead, it is an obedient response to the command of Jesus, an act of faith that accompanies repentance and belief. Baptism in Jesus’ name is essential for the remission of sins and is part of the New Testament pattern of salvation. It is a step of faith through which we enter into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-4). Therefore, the view that baptism adds works to faith misrepresents the biblical teaching, which consistently emphasizes the necessity of both faith and baptism for salvation.
Baptism is not as simple as a dunk in the water by its literal definition. If it's necessary for salvation, then that would open a whole can of worms -
First of all, must the participant be voluntary? Which means, an informed decision with consent? If I'm just following other people who get baptized, or I'm told to get baptized without any idea of my own, is my baptism valid? Do I get saved? And should there be any witness?
Then in what manner should the baptism be performed? Must I be fully immersed into the water? If yes, how deep and for how long I'm expected to hold my breath? If no, as I just have water poured over me or sprinkled, is that valid?
And the qualification of the baptist - who is qualified to baptize? I know you'd quote 1 Tim. 3, but those are the qualifications for overseers, and those qualifications are mostly virtues, whereas in Acts effective baptism associated with the receiving of the Holy Spirit were all performed by apostles, which are believed to be different from overseers. So what are the qualifications of an apostle? There's a modern day apostolic movement, with many self-branded apostles, is any of them qualified?
Now suppose overseers are also qualified to baptize, then how can you know whether an overseer meets all of those qualifications in 1 Tim. 3? Some arrogant members on this forum take the "husband of one wife" and "govern his children" clauses literally, that means pastors who're single either by choice or circumstance, divorced, widowed, infertile, having adopted children not of their own, having only one child - instead of "childREN" are all unqualified, not only unqualified to baptize, but unqualified to be an overseer, they're all frauds, even if they've devoted their whole life to God, according to their literal interpretation. Oh, and all women are excluded. Is that what you believe? And if 1 Tim. 3 is not the golden standard regarding the qualification of the baptist, then what is? Board certification? State registration? Bible school diplomacy?
You may ask, why does any of these nitty gritties matter? Well, if water baptism is really necessary for salvation, then it absolutely matters to God, and God goes down to every little details, see all those intricate design of his tabernacle and the instructions of offerings in the Torah. You want it work, you must do it in God's way. God didn't accept Cain's offering because it was subpar, Cain didn't do it properly. But unfortunately, none of these technical details is clearly described in the bible, it's all up to tradition, so what is the proper way?
Who are you trying to fool with your false doctrine of baptismal salvation? There're several accounts in Acts where the believer is saved BEFORE baptism, and for these Samaritans, baptism even in the name of Jesus didn't save them until Peter and John laid hands on them. How could any of these be possible if water baptism is the prerequisite for salvation? I agree that water baptism is "an obedient response to the command of Jesus", but that only applies to believers who are already saved, it's a ceremony to mark and celebrate their new life in Christ. If you're not saved first, then as I said, baptism only gets you wet, and you get the same treatment John the Baptist gave to the Pharisees and Seduccees: “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:36-38)
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts. 10:44-48)
And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. (Acts 9:17-18)
Nettles states, “Baptism itself does not remove the damnable filth but expresses one’s confidence that only the propitiatory death of Christ saves,” and that Baptism is a “clear symbol of the saving reality…” (28)Yet the Greek text cannot be denied for what it states. The Greek makes a clear declaration that νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, or Baptism now saves. This βάπτισμα is said to now [νῦν]save [σῴζει]. σῴζει occurs in the present indicative active, meaning that it is currently saving. It is not restricted to a specific one time event. Rather, this Baptism now and still and will save.
Willis: The Big Bad Baptism Verse, 1 Peter 3:21
We are reaching the end of my Baptism series soon, which means I will then move on to mental health and sin, connecting everything together. Here we have one of the most important verses in all of …
Nettles states, “Baptism itself does not remove the damnable filth but expresses one’s confidence that only the propitiatory death of Christ saves,” and that Baptism is a “clear symbol of the saving reality…” (28)Yet the Greek text cannot be denied for what it states. The Greek makes a clear declaration that νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, or Baptism now saves. This βάπτισμα is said to now [νῦν]save [σῴζει]. σῴζει occurs in the present indicative active, meaning that it is currently saving. It is not restricted to a specific one time event. Rather, this Baptism now and still and will save.
So why did Jesus not just say to him as he was up in the tree " Come down Zacheus for This day salvation must come to your House " ?
Why did Jesus wait until hearing the Testimony of repentance from Zacheus which prompted Jesus to make His proclamation.
And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house " ?
Luk 19:8
¶
And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
- Status