Does it prove that apostoles preached baptism for salvation?

valtteri21

New Member
Iranaeusis claimed to bne a spiritual grandson of John the apostoles, trough polycarp. So what about this fragment? Is it possible it is faked or something?
  1. Irenaeus (120?-200), “’And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).
 

bert10

New Member
The Apostles did preach the Baptism of water for the remission of sin and also the Baptism of the Spirit and by fire....why? Because Jesus said without those two Baptisms a person cannot enter into the kingdom of His Father.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
The Apostles did preach the Baptism of water for the remission of sin and also the Baptism of the Spirit and by fire....why? Because Jesus said without those two Baptisms a person cannot enter into the kingdom of His Father.
Actually only one is required and that is by God Himself coming into you by His SPirit to walk as He walks in it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Iranaeusis claimed to bne a spiritual grandson of John the apostoles, trough polycarp. So what about this fragment? Is it possible it is faked or something?
  1. Irenaeus (120?-200), “’And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).

Irenaeus misquoted John:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus NEVER said, "born again of water".
The second birth is of the Spirit, not of water.
Jesus made this very clear:

John 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, (first birth)
and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. (second birth)

This is one of the reasons we base our theology on Scripture, and not on any fallible Christian of the past.
 

BJ Bear

Active member
Irenaeus misquoted John:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus NEVER said, "born again of water".
The second birth is of the Spirit, not of water.
Jesus made this very clear:

John 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, (first birth)
and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. (second birth)

This is one of the reasons we base our theology on Scripture, and not on any fallible Christian of the past.
Irenaeus did not misquote Jesus as it is not a quote but an accurate reflection of Scripture. The statement of Irenaeus reflects the context of the question being asked.

Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again... Or: Except a man be born from above...

Nicodemis: How can a man be born when he is old?

Jesus: Truly, truly, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter heaven. See John 3:3-5 in the reputable translation of your choice.

The two sentences of Jesus which immediately follow each of the, "truly, truly," speak of the same matter, that is, to be born again or born from above. The second is explanation of the first. That is why Irenaeus included the word, "through."

The theology you assert for the undefined "we" is based upon a misinterpretation of Scripture and Irenaeus.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Irenaeus did not misquote Jesus as it is not a quote but an accurate reflection of Scripture. The statement of Irenaeus reflects the context of the question being asked.

Thank you for responding.
It seems presumptuous of you to claim Irenaeus was not quoting Jesus. Did Irenaeus tell you that personally? If not, how do you claim to know? It also seems disingenuous, since any misquote of a person can be denied by simply saying, "he wasn't quoting him."

And no, Irenaeus' assertion was NOT "an accurate reflection of Scripture. Irenaeus included being "born of water" as an aspect of being "born again". Jesus did NOT. So they were saying different things.

Jesus: Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again... Or: Except a man be born from above...

Nicodemis: How can a man be born when he is old?

Jesus: Truly, truly, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter heaven. See John 3:3-5 in the reputable translation of your choice.

Yes, I'm very well aware of the passage, thank-you-very-much. I've studied it in great detail, both in English and in Greek.

Jesus spoke of a regeneration, a new birth, being "born again".
He was referring to being born of the spirit.
Prior to Nicodemus being confused, Jesus didn't mention ANYTHING about physical birth. It was only after Nicodemus being confused did Jesus ADD the idea of physical birth, to contrast them to show He was speaking of something OTHER than physical birth.

The two sentences of Jesus which immediately follow each of the, "truly, truly," speak of the same matter, that is, to be born again or born from above. The second is explanation of the first. That is why Irenaeus included the word, "through."

No, Jesus contrasted physical birth ("born of water") with spiritual birth ("born of the spirit").
Then once again, Jesus contrasted physical birth ("that which is born of the flesh is flesh"), with spiritual birth ("that which is born of the spirit is spirit").

There is no reason to ASSUME that "born of water" (which Scripture NEVER uses to refer to "water baptism") is part of being "born again".

The context in v. 4 ("mother's womb") is CLEARLY physical birth.
The context of v. 6 ("born of the flesh") is CLEARLY physical birth.


The theology you assert for the undefined "we" is based upon a misinterpretation of Scripture and Irenaeus.

That seems to be somewhat presumptuous and naive of you.
At the very least, my interpretation is a valid interpretation.
And while you may think your interpretation is a valid interpretation of the text, but that is only when you IGNORE the context of "physical birth".

At the end of the day, you seem to be assuming that Irenaeus is correctly expounding on what Jesus "meant" to say, but Irenaeus had no authority to do so, nor do you have any authority to claim that I am "misinterpreting Scripture".

Have a nice day!
 

BJ Bear

Active member
Thank you for responding.
It seems presumptuous of you to claim Irenaeus was not quoting Jesus. Did Irenaeus tell you that personally? If not, how do you claim to know? It also seems disingenuous, since any misquote of a person can be denied by simply saying, "he wasn't quoting him."
My reply contained the context and basic text of Jesus' answer to Nicodemus and your reply is an off topic non-substantive question which seems disingenuous because you didn't address the text or context? The presumption lies in denying what that section of Scripture plainly says and assigning an action to Irenaeus which doesn't fit the text of Scripture or the fragment from Irenaeus.

And no, Irenaeus' assertion was NOT "an accurate reflection of Scripture. Irenaeus included being "born of water" as an aspect of being "born again". Jesus did NOT. So they were saying different things.
Unfortunately for all the people who choose to deny what that section of Scripture plainly says it is as plain as day that Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit..." It is a further explanation of being born again or born from above since the response of Nicodemus indicated that he didn't understand what that meant.

Yes, I'm very well aware of the passage, thank-you-very-much. I've studied it in great detail, both in English and in Greek.

Jesus spoke of a regeneration, a new birth, being "born again".
He was referring to being born of the spirit.
Prior to Nicodemus being confused, Jesus didn't mention ANYTHING about physical birth. It was only after Nicodemus being confused did Jesus ADD the idea of physical birth, to contrast them to show He was speaking of something OTHER than physical birth.
He specifically and explicitly spoke of being born of water and the Spirit in explicating born again or born from above. He then added physical birth to make the exclusion from heaven of those only physically born absolute and without exception. That which is born of flesh is flesh is a categorical statement as is that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

No, Jesus contrasted physical birth ("born of water") with spiritual birth ("born of the spirit").
Then once again, Jesus contrasted physical birth ("that which is born of the flesh is flesh"), with spiritual birth ("that which is born of the spirit is spirit").
There is no contrast in Jesus explanation of being born again or born from above as being born of water and the Spirit. No matter how much people want to deny it baptism is from God and does what Scripture says it does.
There is no reason to ASSUME that "born of water" (which Scripture NEVER uses to refer to "water baptism") is part of being "born again".

The context in v. 4 ("mother's womb") is CLEARLY physical birth.
The context of v. 6 ("born of the flesh") is CLEARLY physical birth.
The assumption is on the part of those who seek to deny God's word in this regard, for example, you've already assumed a contrast where none is indicated. On the other hand, the Lord and His prophet, John, and baptism are necessarily central components of the first four chapters of John.

Yes, verses four and six as you've quoted them both refer to physical birth but that doesn't support the misinterpretation you assert.
That seems to be somewhat presumptuous and naive of you.
At the very least, my interpretation is a valid interpretation.
And while you may think your interpretation is a valid interpretation of the text, but that is only when you IGNORE the context of "physical bi
There is nothing valid in imagining a contrast where there is none indicated. There is nothing valid in denying a plain reading of the text when there is no reason to do so. Those are both examples of erring eisegesis.
rth".

At the end of the day, you seem to be assuming that Irenaeus is correctly expounding on what Jesus "meant" to say, but Irenaeus had no authority to do so, nor do you have any authority to claim that I am "misinterpreting Scripture".

Have a nice day!
Irenaeus did correctly reflect or accurately represent what Jesus actually said in John 3:3-5. All Christians have the authority to compare the claims of men with what Scripture says and means in its God-given perfect immediate context. Recognizing a misinterpretation is one possible outcome of that comparison, and in this case it is the necessarily true outcome.

Have a nice day!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
My reply contained the context and basic text of Jesus' answer to Nicodemus and your reply is an off topic non-substantive question which seems disingenuous because you didn't address the text or context? The presumption lies in denying what that section of Scripture plainly says and assigning an action to Irenaeus which doesn't fit the text of Scripture or the fragment from Irenaeus.


Unfortunately for all the people who choose to deny what that section of Scripture plainly says it is as plain as day that Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit..." It is a further explanation of being born again or born from above since the response of Nicodemus indicated that he didn't understand what that meant.


He specifically and explicitly spoke of being born of water and the Spirit in explicating born again or born from above. He then added physical birth to make the exclusion from heaven of those only physically born absolute and without exception. That which is born of flesh is flesh is a categorical statement as is that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


There is no contrast in Jesus explanation of being born again or born from above as being born of water and the Spirit. No matter how much people want to deny it baptism is from God and does what Scripture says it does.

The assumption is on the part of those who seek to deny God's word in this regard, for example, you've already assumed a contrast where none is indicated. On the other hand, the Lord and His prophet, John, and baptism are necessarily central components of the first four chapters of John.

Yes, verses four and six as you've quoted them both refer to physical birth but that doesn't support the misinterpretation you assert.

There is nothing valid in imagining a contrast where there is none indicated. There is nothing valid in denying a plain reading of the text when there is no reason to do so. Those are both examples of erring eisegesis.

Irenaeus did correctly reflect or accurately represent what Jesus actually said in John 3:3-5. All Christians have the authority to compare the claims of men with what Scripture says and means in its God-given perfect immediate context. Recognizing a misinterpretation is one possible outcome of that comparison, and in this case it is the necessarily true outcome.

Have a nice day!

<Chuckle>

I see you're too insecure to admit you're wrong, or admit that someone else could have ja valid opinion.

No matter. My salvation doesn't depend on your uncharitable opinion.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Active member
Iranaeusis claimed to bne a spiritual grandson of John the apostoles, trough polycarp. So what about this fragment? Is it possible it is faked or something?
  1. Irenaeus (120?-200), “’And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).
Looks like ol'e Irenaeus understood the type/antitype relationship pretty well.
 

BJ Bear

Active member
<Chuckle>

I see you're too insecure to admit you're wrong, or admit that someone else could have ja valid opinion.
<Chuckle>
I am still waiting for a valid interpretation, one based on the actual text and without the influence of rank imaginative eisegesis.

Where is your valid reasoning from the actual text for imagining the separation of water and Spirit in 3:5? Where in the text is the basis of the imaginative interpretation of born of water after you've incorrectly tried to separate it from Spirit? Etc.
No matter. My salvation doesn't depend on your uncharitable opinion.
That's still looking in the wrong direction.
 

BJ Bear

Active member
Iranaeusis claimed to bne a spiritual grandson of John the apostoles, trough polycarp. So what about this fragment? Is it possible it is faked or something?
  1. Irenaeus (120?-200), “’And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).
It is possible, but it doesn't seem likely since he is referencing Scripture from the Septuagint and Gospel of John. Some enterprising student or theologian somewhere has probably researched the use and relationship of the word baptize in the LXX and the NT.

A close readig of that section of John will demonstrate that John the baptizer, and his disciples, and the disciples of the Lord were baptizing infants before the great commission.

When Jesus told Nic a man must be born again or born from above the word translated as man is an indefinite pronoun. There is no age, sex, or mental acuity stated or implied. Nic understood that correctly and replied with, "How can a human...?"

By definition Jesus is speaking of those born of the flesh, that is, everyone. That which is born of flesh is flesh and in need of being born again or from above, born of water and Spirit, to see or enter heaven. Baptism is a means through which the Lord delivers the new birth and through which the one being baptized receives the Holy Spirit.
 

MMDAN

Active member
Iranaeusis claimed to bne a spiritual grandson of John the apostoles, trough polycarp. So what about this fragment? Is it possible it is faked or something?
  1. Irenaeus (120?-200), “’And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).
In the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. Read it in (Luke 5:12-15). No water is found here. Secondly, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him. (vs. 17) If we follow this "example," we will have to baptized unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins. The NT uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, not of salvation by water baptism. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with salvation by water baptism, but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out (2 Kings 5:15).

In regards to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (verse 4) and with "flesh" (verse 6). Simply stated in that case, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is accompanied by amniotic "water") and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
 

BJ Bear

Active member
So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

Before addressing some of the observations which led to the false conclusion above it is best to see what that section of Scripture says and means.

Looking at 3:5 itself, "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." -KJV

What the KJV translates as, "of water and of the Spirit," is a preposition genitive conjunction genitive, that is, "of water and Spirit." The point is that water and Spirit form the one object of the prepostion. They go together and are not to be separated as if the second bilrth was being divided into two or could be divided into two, as if John wrote, preposition genitive conjunction preposition genitive.

So far as I know, no one has a vested interest in denying what John 1:44 says and means. "Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter." -KJV Like in John 3:5 the preposition, again ek, has a long reach. What is translated as, the city of Andrew and Peter," is preposition genitive genitive genitive conjunction genitive. The one object of the preposition is the city of Andrew and Peter. Bethsaida is not being divided or could be divided by that phrase.
 
Last edited:
Top