What is "born of water"

112358 · Oct 15, 2018

Given that everyone in sight who was becoming a Christian in the early church from the day of Pentecost forward was being immersed in water, 100% in accordance with the command of the Savior, along with the mountains of scripture clarifying the idea, there really should not be a question about this passage. There never was until about 150 years ago. The reference is to baptism which is immersion in water.

Peter and Paul both preached baptism as essential to salvation. Paul himself apparently understood its significance to his own conversion when he was asked by Ananias, "what are you waiting for Paul? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." Peter would not deny water baptism to Cornelius and household. That's the same Peter who commanded baptism in Acts 2 when the NT church began, and who described baptism as an antitype to the flood of Noah (LOTS of water), "which now saves us".

If baptism by immersion in water was good enough for Jesus Christ, the apostles Peter and Paul (and others), and literally everyone who was becoming a christian in the early church, it should be good enough for us.

Wordkeeper · Oct 15, 2018

Baptism is always by water.

So John water baptised Jews into “water”, the Old Covenant, repentance from selfish living to serving the interests of God, the theme of the Sinaitic Covenant, which was a corrective act, because Jews had previously been circumcised into a Covenant of Nomism, a contract that promised that the world would be blessed through Judaism, a righteousness of their own, a contract that never existed, because the Abrahamic Covenant identified the recipient of the promise as one who was loyal, faithful, the righteousness of God, Christ. You could say the Abrahamic Covenant require Jews to wait, like Abraham was required to wait, for Isaac to be given. The Sinaitic Covenant was added to protect Israel from wrath, extinction, like Sodom and Gomorrah.

And Christ water baptised both Jew and Gentile into “Holy Spirit”, the New Covenant, repentance from selfish living to serving the interests of God, leading to empowerment by the Holy Spirit to be blessings to the world.

Mark 1:8"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Rubiks · Oct 15, 2018

Water was a common euphemism for sexual stuff.

I can't think of any parallel to "born of water" that would indicate it should be interpreted as baptism.

112358 · Oct 15, 2018

Rubiks said:
Water was a common euphemism for sexual stuff.

I can't think of any parallel to "born of water" that would indicate it should be interpreted as baptism.

No? Not the dozens of other references to water baptism throughout the NT? Not the connections made between water baptism and the flood that saved the righteous and wiped sin from the face of the earth? Not the deliverance of Israel from bondage via water? Not the fact that Jesus Christ Himself both submitted to and ordered water baptism? Not the fact that all of the apostles taught and practiced water baptism in response to that command? Not the fact that Paul the apostle had his sins "washed away" through water baptism, after he believed, and then likened water baptism to the very death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Not the fact that throughout biblical history, in every dispensation, there are two things associated with salvation...blood and water?

Honestly I can't think of anything in Holy Writ that would indicate the water should be interpreted as anything other than water baptism.

GingerBeer · Oct 15, 2018

DamianWarS said:
Jesus says to Nicodemus in his dialogue about being born again from John 3 "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."

What is "born of water"

The text seems to contrast the flesh and the spirit, natural birth and spirit birth and keeping with these contrasts water would represents the flesh or the natural (compare v5 with v6). Water is traditionally considered part of the birthing experience and this perspective lends itself to expressions like "water breaking". The "water" is amniotic fluid and the "breaking" is the amniotic sac rupturing but we still call it "water" and so did ancient cultures.

But when Jesus says "water" could he mean water baptism instead? He doesn't clarify and the word baptism is never used. Water baptism is still a part of a natural experience that anyone could do regardless of their belief. If Jesus means water baptism it could still represent the flesh side as it is something the flesh engages in and administers and it uses natural devices. Jesus may be saying it's not just baptism but it also needs to be of the Spirit so one can be born again.

But if it's water baptism is this an example of Jesus requiring it along with the spirit to be born again? or does the "water" represent only fleshly devices inherent in our humanity so long as we are born into this world and seek the spirit?

Jesus said:

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Had Jesus meant to say "unless a man is born of his mother and later in life born again of the Holy Ghost ..." he would have said that, but he did not say that. He said "unless a man is born of water and the Holy Ghost" because he intended his hearers to know that being born of water and of the Holy Ghost is one thing with two aspects and not two things each with one aspect.

James Honigman · Oct 15, 2018

In the original Greek manuscripts, born again means "begotten from above." Our Beloved was telling Nicodemus we need to be born of woman, which is to say, born of the water, but also born of the Spirit, which is to say, we enter heaven in our spiritual bodies. We have two bodies, as the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15. We were in those bodies before being begotten from above to be born of woman. Hope that helps. James.

112358 · Oct 15, 2018

James Honigman said:
In the original Greek manuscripts, born again means "begotten from above." Our Beloved was telling Nicodemus we need to be born of woman, which is to say, born of the water, but also born of the Spirit, which is to say, we enter heaven in our spiritual bodies. We have two bodies, as the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15. We were in those bodies before being begotten from above to be born of woman. Hope that helps. James.

No, Nicodemus himself dispensed with the notion that one could be born again of woman, the physical birth. Jesus is speaking of baptism in water which represents a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection. It is rebirth of the spirit, the body of sin put to death in a watery grave, but now alive in Christ when resurrected in "newness of life". Paul explains in Romans 6.

Wordkeeper · Oct 15, 2018

James Honigman said:
In the original Greek manuscripts, born again means "begotten from above." Our Beloved was telling Nicodemus we need to be born of woman, which is to say, born of the water, but also born of the Spirit, which is to say, we enter heaven in our spiritual bodies. We have two bodies, as the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15. We were in those bodies before being begotten from above to be born of woman. Hope that helps. James.

Everyone is born of a woman. Where's the need to command it or list it as a requirement for the kingdom of God?

Wordkeeper · Oct 15, 2018

112358 said:
No? Not the dozens of other references to water baptism throughout the NT? Not the connections made between water baptism and the flood that saved the righteous and wiped sin from the face of the earth? Not the deliverance of Israel from bondage via water? Not the fact that Jesus Christ Himself both submitted to and ordered water baptism? Not the fact that all of the apostles taught and practiced water baptism in response to that command? Not the fact that Paul the apostle had his sins "washed away" through water baptism, after he believed, and then likened water baptism to the very death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Not the fact that throughout biblical history, in every dispensation, there are two things associated with salvation...blood and water?

Honestly I can't think of anything in Holy Writ that would indicate the water should be interpreted as anything other than water baptism.

Selfish living resulted in the extinction of Sodom and Gomorrah. To protect against Israel going the same way, the Law was added to the Abrahamic covenant, was added because of transgression. So the Law was a covenant of repentance, turning away from selfish living to serving the interests of God, justice, mercy and faithfulness. Paul called John's baptism a baptism of repentance. John called it a baptism of water. Therefore John's baptism is a water (is there any other kind) baptism into water, just as Christ's baptism is a water baptism into fire and the Holy Spirit.

Therfore, no one cam see the Kingdom of God unless they have been born of the water and the Holy Spirit: the features of John's baptism are included in Christ's baptism.

Cuddles333 · Oct 15, 2018

Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus says a person cannot enter the womb a 2nd time!
Jesus then says that one must be born of water (of the flesh) and of the Spirit. Jesus then explains the water birth as being of the flesh in verse 6.

Therefore we know that in John 3:1-8 Jesus is not talking about water baptism.

Rubiks · Oct 15, 2018

112358 said:
No? Not the dozens of other references to water baptism throughout the NT? Not the connections made between water baptism and the flood that saved the righteous and wiped sin from the face of the earth? Not the deliverance of Israel from bondage via water? Not the fact that Jesus Christ Himself both submitted to and ordered water baptism? Not the fact that all of the apostles taught and practiced water baptism in response to that command? Not the fact that Paul the apostle had his sins "washed away" through water baptism, after he believed, and then likened water baptism to the very death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Not the fact that throughout biblical history, in every dispensation, there are two things associated with salvation...blood and water?

Honestly I can't think of anything in Holy Writ that would indicate the water should be interpreted as anything other than water baptism.

The verse in question makes no mention of baptism. Its being read into John.

Seun · Oct 15, 2018

Well if Jesus said people should be baptized with water in John 3 it shouldn’t be disputed because that is a word from God.

dms1972 · Oct 15, 2018

I am not a Bible interpreter but I say one should not try to interpret it without looking at other verses concerning "born again" in the New Testament.

For instance

1 Peter 1:23

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

Titus 3:4-6

"…4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not by the righteous deeds we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of new birth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. 6This is the Spirit He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,…"

Ephesians 5:26

"...that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,"

I think a few other posters (see posts #34, #36) have pointed out that water is an illustration for the Word.

Danthemailman · Oct 16, 2018

Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. *Notice in John 7:38-39, "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 source of living water)

If "water" is arbitrarily defined as water 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. In John 7:37, Jesus said, "On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.

In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit.

112358 · Oct 16, 2018

I get responses along these lines often. Pretty much anywhere in the NT where water baptism is referenced directly or indirectly people must go out of their way to make the claim that it is not immersion in water about which the scriptures speak. The problem is that IT IS. There are simply too many examples to even try to refute that baptism in water was a central feature of conversion to Christianity. It was obviously central to both Peter and Paul's doctrine and practice. The Savior Himself commanded it. Why is it such a problem for so many people?

Danthemailman · Oct 16, 2018

112358 said:
I get responses along these lines often. Pretty much anywhere in the NT where water baptism is referenced directly or indirectly people must go out of their way to make the claim that it is not immersion in water about which the scriptures speak. The problem is that IT IS. There are simply too many examples to even try to refute that baptism in water was a central feature of conversion to Christianity. It was obviously central to both Peter and Paul's doctrine and practice. The Savior Himself commanded it. Why is it such a problem for so many people?

Water baptism is the picture or symbol of the new birth, but not the means of securing it.

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

112358 · Oct 16, 2018

Danthemailman said:
Water baptism is the picture or symbol of the new birth, but not the means of securing it.

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I notice that Mark 16:16 is conspicuously absent from the list of scriptures, as well as Matthew 28:19.

Danthemailman · Oct 16, 2018

112358 said:
I notice that Mark 16:16 is conspicuously absent from the list of scriptures, as well as Matthew 28:19.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "water baptized or condemned."

*Once again I ask, if water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

*In John 3:18, notice closely - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

112358 · Oct 16, 2018

And I suppose all of the conversions outlined in the book of Acts had nothing to do with water baptism. And Romans 6:1-11 is not about water baptism. Neither is 1 Peter 3:21, correct?

112358 · Oct 16, 2018

Danthemailman said:
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "water baptized or condemned."

Sorry I can't accept this rationale. If one does not believe in the first place they obviously would not be baptized. It is not necessary to include lack of baptism with lack of belief. It's common sense. Simple logic.

What is "born of water"

What is "born of water"

Natural birth

Water baptism

Jesus, the living water

other

Well-Known Member

Newbie

proud libtard

Well-Known Member

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

proud libtard

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads