Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----John 3:5---King James Version (KJV)


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.


1 Peter 3:21---King James Version (KJV)


21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:



Even Martin Luther taught that:

"Moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved..." [emphasis added]

SOURCE: The Large Catechism (XIII) - Martin Luther
Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
No where in the context of Jesus teaching Nicodemus in John 3 is baptism even mentioned. It is birth and then only two births. One a natural birth and one a spiritual birth.
Jesus' "born again" was not two births--it involved only one. The term "born again" excludes even the possibility of the natural birth.


John 3:3---King James Version (KJV)


3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


The interjection of the natural birth was Nicodemus' misunderstanding.


All people have been born naturally, only the children of God have been born spiritually.
Which means that the natural birth has nothing to do with being "born again".

Next you used 1 Peter 3:21 here is a better example of the real understanding of the text "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

It is the "good conscience toward God" that makes us clean before God, accepting Jesus as Savior and Lord, not the cleansing of the body in the bath water of baptism..
That was Peter's point--water baptism was not a bath--but something that is more involved.

Martin Luther believed in infant baptism believing that saved the child, and that by sprinkling. Do you want to stand by that as a requirement? I had no idea that the LDS had adopted infant baptism as doctrine. This teaches the requirement for baptism like it teaches infant baptism. I reject both.
Regardless of what one accepts or rejects about infant baptism--all the ECF believed that water baptism was essential for salvation. That is one thing they all were united on.