I am of the opinion that this was an exception granted by Christ. I wouldn't base my belief on what one is to do to be saved on this one example. Pretty clear that baptism was a very important event in New Testament times and "Repent and be Baptized, every one of you for the remission of your sins is pretty clear.




Out of all the Biblical debates, this is the one I can't understand what the debate is about. What is said in the Bible, in the New Testament is stated clearly… all of the "outward expression, symbolic action, etc. etc. are all interpretations of why some "think" God told us to be Baptized. Why immersion in water is commanded is not necessarily for us to understand. Do you think those baptized by John the Baptist debated why they needed to be dunked to be saved? Point is, it is commanded and there are many examples in the New Testament, so why in the world do people try to debate this and pick and choose different verses as reasons not to be baptized and/ or minimize it's importance?

I don't think God intends for us to understand everything… you have "Christians" now debating same sex marriage and homosexuality. How? B/C they pick and choose verses that support the theory that God loves everyone and therefor everyone will go go Heaven as long as they love God. This completely leaves out other scripture that condemns homosexuality as well as other versus that tell us to worship God, to spread his word, to help the sick, homeless and widows, etc. etc.

It's not for us to determine why New Testament Christians are baptized. Ok to discuss, but not to redefine... We are simply told to do so. The minute someone starts arguing either against it (saying it's not really important) or minimizes it to something that "makes more sense to us" is the time we take God's word and make it our own.

Unless you are born of the spirit and water you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven
The water is obviously referring to baptism not the fluid surrounding a baby prior to birth. Some actually try to stretch it into that.

The water birth IS referring to natural birth from the womb/flesh (think of a woman's water breaking). And I don't suggest we're confusing the use of the word here, rather it's the logical context of Jesus' and Nicodemus' discussion. Jesus' answer was to the question of how can I enter my mother's womb again. The emphasis was not on the word water nor and, but rather Spirit, as in spiritual regeneration.

Actually from Greek studies I don't think Jesus was referring to water here as natural birth.You have to remember that Nicodemus was a scholar and should have been familiar with scripture. Jesus uses water here to refer to the Holy Spirit.

I'll write out the interpretation here derived from 3 Greek scholars.
Nicodemus,as a Jewish theologian,is supposed to have been familiar with Isaiah 44:4,where water is a type of the Holy Spirit,and also with Isaiah 55:1, where the prophet says, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." These considerations lead the writer to incline to the interpretation that the word "water" here was used by Jesus as a symbol of the Holy Spirit as He does in the case of the Samaritan woman and also when He spoke at the great day of the feast.
The Greek word translated "and" has other uses than merely that of a connective. It has an emphatic or ascensive use, and is at that time translated by the word "even." Thus, the translation here could read, "Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Another consideration pointing to this interpretation and translation is the fact that when Jesus recurs again to the new birth in verses 6 and 8, He does not refer to water at all, but only to the Spirit. Evidently seeing the blank look on the face of Nicodemus, our Lord adds the words "even of the Spirit," thus explaining the symbol to this theologian of the Old Testament who should have understood it.

Jesus said "water and Spirit" being born again consist of water and Spirit, it's part of becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus.