Water baptism, can you agree with this statement?

[pelathais]

The reference in Clement seems to be an example of what we were looking for, thanks. He emphasizes, "born again of water and of God" apparently applying the inferential usage that the "Water and Spirit" folks have, though he doesn't specifically tie it to John 3:5. Still, the wording is such that it seems pretty obvious that's what he had in mind.

The statement from Ireneaus is identical to the one before. The others, while emphasizing baptism, don't touch on our subject.

We don't really find anyone saying that the statement of Jesus in John 3:5, "born of the water" is a command to be baptized or equates to water baptism itself. Even if we could find some of the Old Catholic Fathers to make that association, it really doesn't prove the association to be correct. From my reading, you don't really find John 3:5's "born of water" being called baptism until the 19th Century Restoration movements in England and the U.S.

What we are lacking entirely is a case being made from the Bible itself that makes the inferential usage that the Water & Spirit folks use.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The reference in Clement seems to be an example of what we were looking for, thanks. He emphasizes, "born again of water and of God" apparently applying the inferential usage that the "Water and Spirit" folks have, though he doesn't specifically tie it to John 3:5. Still, the wording is such that it seems pretty obvious that's what he had in mind.

The statement from Ireneaus is identical to the one before. The others, while emphasizing baptism, don't touch on our subject.

We don't really find anyone saying that the statement of Jesus in John 3:5, "born of the water" is a command to be baptized or equates to water baptism itself. Even if we could find some of the Old Catholic Fathers to make that association, it really doesn't prove the association to be correct. From my reading, you don't really find John 3:5's "born of water" being called baptism until the 19th Century Restoration movements in England and the U.S.

What we are lacking entirely is a case being made from the Bible itself that makes the inferential usage that the Water & Spirit folks use.

Are we reading the same quotes? The context is all about water baptism and the association to John 3:5 not alluded to but actually quoted. These early church fathers are without a doubt linking John 3:5 to water baptism and remission of sin. What do you think they mean by regeneration and water of rebirth?

Okay, a few more quotes,

200-258 AD CARTHAGE Nemesianus of Thubunae said: That the baptism which heretics and schismatics bestow is not the true one, is everywhere declared in the Holy Scriptures, since their very leading men are false Christs and false prophets, as the Lord says by Solomon: 'He who trusteth in that which is false. he feedeth the winds...' And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, 'Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit." ("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 566.)

360 AD Athanasius "[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33]).

375 AD Basil the Great "This then is what it means to be `born again of water and Spirit': Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3, Col. 2:12-13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit's presence there" (The Holy Spirit, 15:35).

379 AD Basil the Great "For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption" (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects 13:5).

381 AD Ambrose of Milan "Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and-the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75-76]).

381 AD Ambrose of Milan "The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism. . . . `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'" (Abraham 2:11:79-84).

382 AD Gregory of Nyssa "[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.pdf Click on this link then Scroll up to page 130. I warn you Chrysostom is wordy but I believe he is saying something similar to what I have said but in a much more ornate and roundabout way. I think he believes one recieves the Holy Spirit when baptized. Here are a couple of interesting quotes from his homily on John 3.

Now what He saith, is something like this: “If thou art not born again, if thou partakest not of the Spirit which is by the washing of Regeneration, thou canst not have a right opinion of Me, for the opinion which thou hast is not spiritual, but carnal.”

When Nicodemus fell into error and wrested the words of Christ to the earthly birth, and said that it was not possible for an old man to be born again, observe how Christ in answer more clearly reveals the manner of the Birth, which even thus had difficulty for the carnal enquirer, yet still was able to raise the hearer from his low opinion of it. What saith He? “Verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” What He declares is this: “Thou sayest that it is impossible, I say that it is so absolutely possible as to be necessary, and that it is not even possible otherwise to be saved.” For necessary things God hath made exceedingly easy also. The earthly birth which is according to the flesh, is of the dust, and therefore heaven is walled against it, for what hath earth in common with heaven? But that other, which is of the Spirit, easily unfolds to us the arches above. Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat,fearful the sentence. “It is not (possible),” He saith, “for one not born of water and the Spirit, to enter into the Kingdom of heaven”; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. “Except,” He saith, “a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.” Yet even thus Nicodemus did not understand.
The first creation then, that of Adam, was from earth; the next, that of the woman, from his rib;the next, that of Abel, from seed; yet we cannot arrive at the comprehension of any one of these, nor prove the circumstances by argument, though they are of a most earthly nature; how then shall we be able to give account of the unseen generation by Baptism, which is far more exalted than these, or to require arguments for that strange and marvelous Birth? Since even Angels stand by while that Generation takes place, but they could not tell the manner of that marvelous working, they stand by only, not performing anything, but beholding what takes place. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, worketh all. Let us then believe the declaration of God; that is more trustworthy than actual seeing. The sight often is in error, it is impossible that God’s Word should fail; let us then believe it; that which called the things that were not into existence may well be trusted when it speaks of their nature. What then says it? That what is effected is A GENERATION. If any ask, “How,” stop his mouth with the declaration of God, which is the strongest and a plain proof. If any enquire, “Why is water included?”

If you continue reading on the link you will find Chrysostom expounds on the need for water in the new birth which he does not equate to amniotic fluid.

[pelathais]

What we are lacking entirely is a case being made from the Bible itself that makes the inferential usage that the Water & Spirit folks use.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What we are lacking entirely is a case being made from the Bible itself that makes the inferential usage that the Water & Spirit folks use.

What are you looking for from the Water and Spirit folk?

Historically many theologians understand John 3:5 to be linked to water baptism from very early times. So the teaching has been around for awhile. Much longer than you are willing to agree to.

Your interpretation of John 3:5 is not persuasive in my opinion though you present it eloquently. Shall I link verses that show water and Spirit are part of the regeneration or would you still like to stay within the confines of John 3? Ultimately whatever we come away with in John 3 has to harmonize with the rest of scripture.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Well ... looks like the Catholic church is fully behind your teaching.

I'm not supporting the Catholic church when I say John 3:5 is born of water is water baptism. I'm supporting what I believe the Bible clearly teaches. It just happens that some ECF's and early Catholics believe the same way.

[DaveC519]

Not "strange and unheard of" and certainly not a complete twisting. It's just that we've added an inference that I think was not intended in the original. And to equate "born of the water" in verse 6 with water baptism is new (the last 150 years or so).

Interesting. Actually, historically speaking, we see the idea of decoupling water baptism from John 3:3-5 is a relatively recent development. Mizpeh has documented the ante-Nicene Fathers' views which clearly demonstrate they associated "born of water" with water baptism, and that this effected remission of sins.

As recently as Luther, we see an argument in favor of baptismal regeneration. However, in the further evolution of Reformation thought, we find that we have thrown the baby out with the bath water (pun intended) on this subject.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What we are lacking entirely is a case being made from the Bible itself that makes the inferential usage that the Water & Spirit folks use.

What are you looking for from the Water and Spirit folk?

Historically many theologians understand John 3:5 to be linked to water baptism from very early times. So the teaching has been around for awhile. Much longer than you are willing to agree to.

Your interpretation of John 3:5 is not persuasive in my opinion though you present it eloquently. Shall I link verses that show water and Spirit are part of the regeneration or would you still like to stay within the confines of John 3? Ultimately whatever we come away with in John 3 has to harmonize with the rest of scripture.

Hello everyone, I'm just popping in after an extended absence and have yet to read the last 9 pages of discussion so maybe someone can point to where someone has made a case for baptism using only the text of John. We asked long ago for someone to look at the book of John as if it were the only text available and show us how baptism could be interpreted from the phrase "born of water" by an objective unbiased reader using proper hermeneutical protocol. If someone can point me to the post which does this I'd appreciate you saving me some reading time.

Ultimately whatever we come away with in John 3 has to harmonize with the rest of scripture.

Absolutely, but we must also make sure we do not read the rest of Scripture through a skewed interpretation of John 3:5. We must be careful not to allow such a highly uncertain phrase to become our doctrinal paradigm through which we view the whole of Scripture. This would be a tragedy. Don't you agree?

[pelathais]

Hello Adino, good to see you again. And hello DaveC519.

Mizpeh, I'm sorry but I missed your two more recent posts on this thread. And...

Shall I link verses that show water and Spirit are part of the regeneration or would you still like to stay within the confines of John 3? Ultimately whatever we come away with in John 3 has to harmonize with the rest of scripture.

Remember, my original position was not against the essentiality of baptism or even against "baptismal regeneration." I said that we could make a better case for the Apostolic view of baptism by avoiding the things we appear to be reading into John 3:5. You don't have to convince me about baptism, we were just looking at John 3:5's "born of the water" statement.

As Adino has said,

We must be careful not to allow such a highly uncertain phrase to become our doctrinal paradigm through which we view the whole of Scripture. This would be a tragedy. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Does anyone know the 3 step????

Oh yeah, you betcha ... I'm one of those 3 steppers!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Caston Smith

Oh yeah, you betcha ... I'm one of those 3 steppers!

Well that settles it ... I'm one too.