John 3:5 Baptismal regeneration?????

John 3:1-15 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.


6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.(esv)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael Burgos:
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that a person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name to receive the forgiveness of sins. The oneness doctrine of baptism is commonly known as baptismal regeneration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This is absolutely untrue, we are very much against "Baptismal regeneration"(Making Baptism the savior.) What Michael failed to tell anyone in truth is; that they refer to our teaching as such, as we deny their view as unscriptural.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:
The regeneration of a person in the oneness view, can only be accomplished by this prescription, and according to the largest oneness denomination, all other forms of baptism are illegitimate and ineffective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: The regeneration of a person is not up to the Onenenss view or the Reformed View but rather scripture and it is for this reason I am answering Michael as to what scriptures teach.( to do a comparison of the two doctrines) to see who actually contradicts the scriptures and who does not. We have simply gotten a rehashing of their redundant view of *being born of the water is refering to being born.* This will be looked at further down when Michael actually deals with that part of John 3;5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not unique to Oneness Pentecostalism; Roman Catholicism teaches a similar view that also includes infants in it's redemptive effects, although the Triune formula is used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: It is not unique to us at all as Baptism without the name Jesus, literally spoken over the one being Baptized does absolutely nothing but get one wet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:

I do believe that the Jesus name formula is an outright rebellion against the clear teaching of the Lord Himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: As do I believe that using the titles: Father, Son and Spirit are the actual rebellion and not doing what the Lord Jesus actually stated to do in (Math. 28:19) that being: Go and find the One name and Baptize in that name. We get another account fo the great commission from Lukes view(Who wrote the book of Acts) In Luke 24:47 .

And that repentence and remission of sins be preached in HIS NAME among all nations BEGINING at Jerusalem.

(Where The first true message of salvation was preached) The Acts 2:38 message began at Jerusalm by Peter and Jesus sanctioned it in Lukes account... Peter said nothing about Baptizing the titles as he knew jJesus name was the fulfilment of all three titles,the name of the father, and of the son, and of the spirit.
But notice, that Michael makes a statement for the purpose of appealing to the emotions of those who hold to the false view of Math.28:19 as truth instead of appealing to what the text actually says and further reveals in( Luke 24:47) which points to( Acts 2:38) as the truth and ties in the math.28:19 passage and Michael makes an appeal to only a single passage in spite of the others.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael:
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus uses the definite article before each name, and in doing so, He identified each name to be used respectively (the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I know this argument better than that and have heard it many times and he has actually gotten it wrong, but it makes no difference and it does not teach what he is saying as a pat, fool proof ,argument... What he means is the use of the preposition( *of *)before the definite article(*The*) somehow teaches his doctrine of distinct names...

The Apostles only used One name(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:45,19:1-6 , Paul called on that name: Acts 22;16) as there is only One name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved(Acts 4:12) and it is all inclusive of the titles Father, Son, and Spirit, as there is Only one name of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named(Eph.3:15) And there shall be One LORD(YHWH) and his name One (Zech.14:9) Jesus is the fulfilment of that name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

The various cross references employed to defend the oneness position do little to support the Jesus only formula simply because they are all descriptive accounts divorced of context, and not prescriptive commands. There are volumes more that can be said on this subject, but my focus here is to identify the role of baptism , if any, in our Lord's encounter with Nicodemus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mlculwell: Jesus would leave the detailed teaching of salvation in the new covenant to his disciples which was not the era that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:

The Lord Jesus is specifically speaking of the regenerative work of the Spirit of God in this account, and I can think of no better place to affirm or replace our understanding of this pivotal subject.

In verse 5 Jesus issues His emphasis to Nicodemus when He states "Truly, truly, I say to you." This strong Hebraic expression indicates to us that His following teaching is of paramount importance. He follows His emphasis by saying "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The assumption of water baptism as a requirement for salvation cannot be made at this point since our Lord continues by saying in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The correlation of water and flesh, and the spirit to the Spirit is undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here is what Michael and the Reformed are trying to make us swallow: That Jesus was somehow telling Nicodemus he must be born(You must be born of water verse 5) Michael has tried very hard to shirk the fact, as I pointed out to him once before, that this is redundandcy compounded and somehow he refuses that strong argument that reveals his contradictory interpretation to continue in his folly of eisigesis. It is not Jesus contradicting scripture, telling us that :"we must be born of water (* flesh* according to Michael and the Reformed) and then in the same breath refuting it it is Michael's very bad interpretataion so that his doctrine might work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

Should Jesus had been referring to water baptism at this point, we would assume that He would have provided further instruction since Christian baptism , that is the command and teaching of baptism (as seen in Acts 2:38), had not yet been instituted. Nicodemus would have been ignorant of the ordinance since it had yet to be issued, and John's baptism is no where to be identified as a requirement for salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I am amazed as Michael is actually right on two points above Christian Baptism was not yet instituted and John's Baptism was not a requirment under the new. But that is all he right about. Jesus revealed the truth to Nicodemus of the coming New will, later to be expounded upon by the disciples .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The importance of this fact is further supported by Jesus' own response to the question Nicodemus asked; " How can these things be?" Jesus responds by issuing a question of His own; "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" This question Jesus poses indicates that Nicodemus should have already known about the correlation, if any, between water and the Spirit of God. Therefore, we can assume that the Old Testament contained within it enough information to provide Nicodemus with ample understanding about this subject.

If the water Jesus spoke of in verse 5 is the waters of baptism, where is the Old Testament text that identifies it? A careful survey of the Old Testament identifies Ezekial 36:25-27 as one of but a few (the others are Isaiah 32:15, 44:3), that correlate water with regeneration or salvation.

Ezekial 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.(esv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here we have a fine example of Michael contradicting himself ; in another discussion with Michael on the Godhead(Oneness vs. the false view of the trinity) Michael made a point to tell me:" that the New Testament explains the Old. " I could not agree more! But what he wants his cake and eat too! when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus they were still in the Old covenant as the blood of the testator had not been shed . Jesus simply stared revealing Gems of truth that they could not yet understand. He even opened the disiples understanding.(Luke 24:45)


Michael here in Exekial sets up his very false strawman (An argument he devised for us and sets himself to knock it down.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:

This text detracts from the oneness doctrine of baptism since the use of prophetic metaphor is employed. "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean..." does not support baptismal regeneration because sprinkling is not the oneness method, God Himself is said to be the sprinkler, and should verse 25 be taken literally, God would have to follow His sprinkling with an actual heart transplant; "And I will remove the heart of stone."
John 3:6 correlates water with flesh. Given the context of Jesus' statement, "you must be born again," we can safely assume that the water spoken of is the water released during bearing. "Flesh gives birth to flesh" provides us with the correct context of His reference to water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mlculwell: The intricacies of Baptism are not at all being taught for New testament salvation here that is done in the New testament and passages abound and I guarantee he does not want to actually go there as it will refute his false doctrine. Not only did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he MUST BE BORN AGAIN. But that he also: MUST BE BORN OF THE WATER (But according to Michael that means:" being Born") Can you imagine Jesus saying such a redundant statement? Again the detail teaching on the subject would be taught by the disciples later to be Apostles and then Nicodemus would recognize those whom Jesus commissioned as truth preachers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

During a recent debate, a oneness adherent opposed this interpretation by suggesting that since all humans undergo birth, the notion of Jesus referring to the water released during child birth in John 3:5 would be redundant. In light of this assertion, I think it is important to keep in mind who it is that Jesus was actually speaking to. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a zealous Jew, who like other Jews, might have believed his Judaism or Jewish birth was enough to merit eternal life (Matt 3:7-9, John 5:39). Jesus does not say that being born of water is a simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit, but instead He contrasts the two. Being born again refers purely to spiritual rebirth, whereas Nicodemus mistook Jesus' words to mean a needed additional physical birth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: both Michael and Nicodemus are mistaking being born of the water as child birth! Does anyone see the blatant contradiction Michael is actually doing the same thing Nicodemus is doing this is how we know he has zero truth! It is redundant and a carnal non spiritual interpretation.

Nobody is saying that being born of water is a "simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit." But rather being born again constitutes being born of the water and the spirit. A unity of the two. The only contrast being made is of the flesh and the spirit and being born of the water is not being born of the flesh. The spiritual birth is inclusive of being of being born of the water and of the spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

(vs 4). "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" identifies the spiritual nature of being born again. Therefore, the contention of Jesus is that you must be born not simply physically but spiritually. This spiritual birth is what regenerates, as opposed to the ethnicity or tradition one is born into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: But Michael goes headlong into his false interpetation and tries to tell us when Jesus said: you MUST be born again of the water , means: being" born of flesh" as opposed to what? It clearly is not at all as he(Michael) says! Certainly the contrast is of being born of flesh and Spirit but being born of the water has nothing to do with that contrast!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

In conclusion, the focus of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is underscored in verse 8 where the sovereignty and volition of the Spirit is metaphorically compared to the nature of wind. Baptism is a human undertaking,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
All of Acts 2:38 taught by the Apostles and sanctioned as truth by the Lord Jesus in Luke 24:47 as the great commission are not excluded from The regenerative work of the spirit because it does not fit your skewed view. It is not a work produced by the Apostles but given by the Lord himself(grace)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel Burgos: whereas regeneration is the prerogative of the Spirit alone (Titus 3:5). Obeying a command or baptismal formula can no more regenerate a dead human spirit (Eph 2:1) than the decision of Lazurus could release him from the grave, or bring life to dry bones (Ezk 37). This is exactly why Jesus uses the metaphor of physical birth to explain regeneration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Obeying is of Grace. We are not talking about something given by men and demanded to be blindly obeyed but by the Lord himself and No matter how you wish to twist that fact does not make your view any less the twisting of scriptures that it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
To suggest that water baptism regenerates negates the entirety of our Lord's metaphor and puts emphasis not on the sovereign will of God, but the freedom of men to obey an ordinance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
Nobody is suggesting "water Baptism regenerates". You better take that up with the Catholics, and the Churches of Christ! We are saying the literal spoken Jesus name in water Baptism is being born of the water and remits sin! Your problem and the biggest weakness of your Reformed(Deformed )view is that God is not all powerful enough to create men with free will and God still be and remain sovereign(That shows me your view of God is weak!)You must attempt to cheapen what God has given through grace to make your pathetic view look somewhat viable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------