# The Necessity of Baptism



## kvanlaan (Nov 15, 2009)

In John 3:5, it would seem that baptism is essential for salvation. I've always been under the impression that if possible, we should baptize, but that it is not necessary. The thief on the cross was not baptized, but was saved.

How do we harmonize these two views?


----------



## MW (Nov 15, 2009)

John 3:5 certainly points to the new heart teaching of Ezekiel 36:25-27. The water and Spirit are symbolic of what God does, not what man does.

Nevertheless baptism is essential as is made clear by the apostolic commission in Matt. 28, Mark 16, and the apostolic practice in the book of Acts. It is essential for visible church communion and so for the ordinary possibility of salvation. We can only leave men who are outside of the ordinary means of grace to the Almighty to do with as He pleases. The thief on the cross was just such a person, and we only know about his conversion because it is described for us in the infallible record of holy writ.


----------



## Ron (Nov 15, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> In John 3:5, it would seem that baptism is essential for salvation. I've always been under the impression that if possible, we should baptize, but that it is not necessary. The thief on the cross was not baptized, but was saved.
> 
> How do we harmonize these two views?



Some like to do gymnastics around the verse and even go so far to attribute the water to the woman's water breaking in child birth. The simple answer is, assuming the verse makes reference to baptism, is that there is spiritual relation (i.e. a sacramental union) between the sign and the thing it signifies. That relationship is so close that the Scriptures will often attribute the reality to the sign but it's not the sign that saves. 

Ron

-----Added 11/15/2009 at 10:52:15 EST-----

Kevin,

I hadn't read Matthew's post prior to putting up mine. My post can be seen as an elaboration upon what Matthew noted in his _first _paragraph. Do try to internalize what he noted in his second paragraph. These concepts are not at odds with each other. It's a very rich subject.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 16, 2009)

Where does being Born of Water come from? Any ideas? Can a man be Born of Water and what does that mean? I see presuppositions.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Where does being Born of Water come from? Any ideas? Can a man be Born of Water and what does that mean? I see presuppositions.



Ezek 36:25, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you."

Verses 26, 27, explain being born of the Spirit: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 16, 2009)

> Some like to do gymnastics around the verse and even go so far to attribute the water to the woman's water breaking in child birth.



I saw this elsewhere - kinda a head scratcher.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> John 3:5 certainly points to the new heart teaching of Ezekiel 36:25-27. The water and Spirit are symbolic of what God does, not what man does.
> 
> Nevertheless baptism is essential as is made clear by the apostolic commission in Matt. 28, Mark 16, and the apostolic practice in the book of Acts. It is essential for visible church communion and so for the ordinary possibility of salvation. We can only leave men who are outside of the ordinary means of grace to the Almighty to do with as He pleases. The thief on the cross was just such a person, and we only know about his conversion because it is described for us in the infallible record of holy writ.



I agree with all of the above. However if someone can be saved outside of an "essential" means, then does that means (here baptism) become by necessity unessential? Serious question.

-----Added 11/16/2009 at 04:08:17 EST-----



kvanlaan said:


> > Some like to do gymnastics around the verse and even go so far to attribute the water to the woman's water breaking in child birth.
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this elsewhere - kinda a head scratcher.



Ah yes I here this often too. I'd say that this is probably the most common answer you would here from most Evangelicals today.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> I agree with all of the above. However if someone can be saved outside of an "essential" means, then does that means (here baptism) become by necessity unessential? Serious question.



It is only non-essential for eternal salvation. As noted, it remains essential for visible church communion. We would never know the thief on the cross was converted without special revelation. We do not possess special revelation of each and every individual's spiritual condition. The only visible sign that we have is the Lord's ordinance of baptism whereby the individual is engaged to be the Lord's.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with all of the above. However if someone can be saved outside of an "essential" means, then does that means (here baptism) become by necessity unessential? Serious question.
> ...



Thanks Reverend. I see clearly now.
But then I have another question. Since the text reads that no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless born of water and Spirit would Kingdom of God then refer to the visible church? Because as we have noted there are those saved eternally apart from Baptism. But then if it is the visible church that would be a hard sell because not all in the church visible are born of the Spirit. Sorry, so many questions. I am around many many Campbellites and this verse is used very often to defend the necessity of Baptism for the remissions of sins and salvation.


----------



## Eoghan (Nov 20, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> In John 3:5, it would seem that baptism is essential for salvation. I've always been under the impression that if possible, we should baptize, but that it is not necessary. The thief on the cross was not baptized, but was saved.
> 
> How do we harmonize these two views?



Anyone converted whilst being crucified, burned to death, dying in a traffic accident etc... is excused baptism.

In the words of the Meerkat "Simple"


----------



## MW (Nov 20, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> But then I have another question. Since the text reads that no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless born of water and Spirit would Kingdom of God then refer to the visible church?



No; because, as noted above, "water" is as much the work of God as "Spirit." The water is God's sprinkling of the person to make them clean, as is indicated in the Ezekiel reference. This is what baptism signifies, but it is not effected by baptism. Hence "water" cannot refer to baptism as the means of accomplishing this birth. The kingdom of God must therefore refer to the kingdom of grace in its inward, spiritual reality.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> > But then I have another question. Since the text reads that no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless born of water and Spirit would Kingdom of God then refer to the visible church?
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. I understand now. This is a much more satisfying view I think.


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 20, 2009)

I believe Jn 3:5 is speaking about the water of seperation of numbers 19.
Jesus expected Nicodemus to know about it already/ The teacher of Israel. 
Later on Jesus speaks of numbers 21


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Just for reference to Tony's post on Numbers 19.


> (Num 19:9) And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.





> (Joh 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.
> 
> (Joh 3:6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.




I have a question. Why are the two passages (v. 5 and 6) so closely related and one seems to be an expounding of the other? It just seems that way to me. I see why there are those who think that being born of water is paralleled to being born of flesh. 

I do agree that water is meant in a figurative and metaphorical sense to be the grace of God as others have pointed out. 



> (Eze 36:25) Then will *I sprinkle clean water upon you*, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
> 
> (Eze 36:26) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
> 
> (Eze 36:27) And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.



BTW, great proof text for sprinkling over immersion. LOL


----------



## Turtle (Nov 20, 2009)

*the red heifer ashes*



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Just for reference to Tony's post on Numbers 19.
> 
> 
> > (Num 19:9) And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.
> ...



Eze does kinda paint a picture of sprinkling/regeneration..

And Numbers 19 along with Hebrews 9 paint a picture of the red heifer ashes mixed with running water to be sprinkled as a water of separation, to purify the flesh... ... and if that sprinkling purifies the flesh, _"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"_ 
... Which sounds a lot like Eze 36, and the washing of regeneration of Titus 3.  LOL.


----------

