JOHN 3:5 — WHY IT DOES NOT TEACH THE NEW BIRTH IS BY BAPTISM / Bob L. Ross

John 3:5 has often been misused as if being born again is somehow related to the act of water baptism. It is assumed, without any proof whatsoever, that “water” signifies baptism. If “water” is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism” in John 7:38. If this sounds foolish, it is no more so than the idea that baptism is the source or the means of being born again.

Here is how I understand John 3:5:

(1) The Greek reads: “born of water and [kai] Spirit.” It is not born of water and of the Spirit, as if there are two sources. But the fact is, there is only one source of the new birth in this passage: the Spirit: “born ek water kai Spirit,” which can read, “born out of water even the Spirit.”

(2) The Greek word kai is often rendered even, and “born of water even the Spirit” is what W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testement Words calls “the epexagetic or explanatory use” (Vol. IV, page 252). Similar in use to “God even (kai) the Father” and “Jesus even (kai) our Saviour.”

(3) The same writer, John, in a near context, makes “water” synonymous with the Spirit: “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit . . . “ (John 7:38, 39). This shows that water is emblematical of the Spirit.

In every place where men are said to be “born” spiritually, the word EK [out of] is used, which indicates SOURCE. When “means” are in view, the word DIA [by or through] is used. And in no place in the Bible is any one said to born ek baptism or dia baptism.

Baptism is neither the source nor the means of the new birth.—Bob Ross

——————————————————————————–

Pilgrim Publications

Box 66, Pasadena, Texas 77501

Publishers of C. H. Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit.

Website: http://www.pilgrimpublications.com

Phone (713) 477-4261; Fax (713) 477-7561

Email pilgrimpub@aol.com

This entry was posted in Apologetics, Baptism, Catholicism, Church of Christ, Oneness Heresy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to JOHN 3:5 — WHY IT DOES NOT TEACH THE NEW BIRTH IS BY BAPTISM / Bob L. Ross

  1. I agree with Bob. Having said that I struggle with the fact that so many of the church writings from the first 3 centuries refer to remission of sins through the water of baptism, but more troubling is that many of the earliest church leaders understood John 3:5 the same way as people we consider heretics.
    Justin -1st apology 61, AD135
    Tertullian -On Baptism 12, AD200
    Irenaeus -fragments 34, AD175
    Hippolytus -Theophany 8, AD200
    Cyprian -Epistles 71:1, AD235
    Cyril -Lectures 3:4, AD300?
    Chrysostom -Priesthood 3:5,6, AD 380

    So how would I address this if in dialogue with Oneness Pentecostals?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *