What is "born of water"

What is "born of water"

  • Natural birth

    Votes: 25 40.3%
  • Water baptism

    Votes: 28 45.2%
  • Jesus, the living water

    Votes: 6 9.7%
  • other

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • Total voters
    62

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,600.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So...Spirit could be an emblem of the word of God.

How would that work??
I said "water" (not Spirit) is also used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God.
*See the scriptures I posted in post #114.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Every sacrament uses physical properties in order to convey the spiritual meaning. Similarly, Jesus made mud with spittle to apply to the blind man's eyes. He could more easily have said a few words and cured him, right? (John 9:6)
But when He applied the mud to his eyes the man first saw trees as men walking around or some such, so He applies again. Sounds like it’s factual rather than symbolic of sanctification. That was the only time Jesus used anything but instantaneous healing of disease. Blindness is a process when spiritual things are involved it would seem.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Every sacrament uses physical properties in order to convey the spiritual meaning. Similarly, Jesus made mud with spittle to apply to the blind man's eyes. He could more easily have said a few words and cured him, right? (John 9:6)
I'm not dismissing it but rather challenging it as the word is not unpacked so I want it to be clear. Water and the Spirit to you seem to be the union of the physical and the spiritual... sacrament and the Spirit... am I right?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I said "water" (not Spirit) is also used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God.
*See the scriptures I posted in post #114.
I know. My comment was a rebuttal to Damian's idea, not yours. I included your post only in order to show readers the sequence of remarks leading up to that and where the "emblem" comment entered into the discussion.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm not dismissing it but rather challenging it as the word is not unpacked so I want it to be clear.

OK

Water and the Spirit to you seem to be the union of the physical and the spiritual... sacrament and the Spirit... am I right?
Yes. That is the perspective of the Church since Ancient times. Or if it is best to put it in other words, that is the nature of a sacrament, any sacrament.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: DamianWarS
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
-
But when He applied the mud to his eyes the man first saw trees as men walking around or some such, so He applies again. Sounds like it’s factual rather than symbolic of sanctification.
The spiritual aspect of this issue is, I think, accepted by all here. It is the physical that was in question with the water vs spirit claims.

That was the only time Jesus used anything but instantaneous healing of disease.

Jesus put his fingers into the deaf man's ears, for another example. He did not have to do that in order to heal him. And there are others.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It’s a very old thread and from the op it’s more involved than I care to be. My mom passed away this morning so not really into thinking either. But Webber? posted a thread on this not long ago, where I supplied thoughts to the effect that the living water is the HS with scriptural reference. The sad shape of repairs to the forum don’t produce links to find that thread.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A useful way to analyse the issue is to recognise that baptism was asked for, and benefits received.

John refused to give baptism which would have given protection from the coming wrath, to those who asked for it, because they had not shown the signs denoting repentance. This is the baptism into water, which destroyed whatever could contaminat Noah, prevented it from being a threat.

Philip gave baptism to Ethiopian eunuch because he believed that Jesus was the Messiah. This is baptism into water and the Holy Spirit. It had the benefit of Noah's experience, as well as the experience of Christ's disciples, of receiving edification towards becoming a blessing to the world, by sharing in the fulfillment of the purpose of the creation of humanity, to turn the world to God. The baptism into Moses, leading to drinking from the Rock was a type, a foreshadowing of the baptism into water and the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 19, Paul is very concerned that the believers in Ephesus have the full orbed experience that those in Jerusalem had gone through, moving him to convince the Ephesians to be baptised again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
by most, you must mean all. why is your interpretation better than the rest?
1) Net Bible and World English Bible do not capitalise 'spirit' in John 3:5. The original texts do not capitalise 'spirit'.

2) The context of John 3:5 is that a person has to be born from above (verses 3 and 7), and Jesus concludes in verse 8 that one has to be born of the Spirit. Therefore, verse 3:5 is really about born of the Spirit, not water baptism and not comparison with natural birth.

3) 1 John 5:8 says that the Spirit, water, and blood are one in agreement; clearly associating water with the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
so why even say water? why not just spirit?
The original texts do not capitalise, so it would have to be 'born of spirit and spirit'. Try to work that out!

Instead, the function that only the Holy Spirit can perform is used, and that is the function of rebirth through the washing by the Holy Spirit - born of water and spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Newtheran

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2018
783
571
South
✟26,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’” (John 3:5-7)...

The context of the water in this statement is not a reference to “baptism,” but is a reference to the "water" through which a person is born into the world naturally the first time (aka: amniotic fluid).

So it is your contention that - since life begins at conception - that all whose babies whose mothers miscarry prior to the filling of the amniotic sac with fluid go to hell?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
So it is your contention that - since life begins at conception - that all whose babies whose mothers miscarry prior to the filling of the amniotic sac with fluid go to hell?

The common assumption, of course, is that miscarried fetuses go somewhere, never having ever drawn a natural breath of air.
 
Upvote 0

Kris Jordan

Acts 4:12
May 1, 2019
377
539
56
Southern California
Visit site
✟46,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So it is your contention that - since life begins at conception - that all whose babies whose mothers miscarry prior to the filling of the amniotic sac with fluid go to hell?

No, not at all. God's grace covers those who are before the "age of accountability." (2 Samuel 12:19-23)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,246
45,333
67
✟2,915,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
God's grace covers those who are before the "age of accountability." (2 Samuel 12:19-23)
Hi Kris, I agree. The other thing is this, on what basis would God judge and condemn an infant or an unborn child :scratch:

The Bible tells us that all who stand in the Judgment (unbelievers) at the Great White Throne will be judged and condemned on the basis of 1. what they know and understand of the law (even if the only law that they've had access to is the law that was written on the hearts by God) and 2. what they did with that knowledge and understanding. An infant/toddler/unborn child neither knows the law, nor could they understand it even if they did, so there is no basis for judging them.

Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

--David
p.s. - I should add that God has provided both hope and a remedy for those who know, understand and transgress the law of God :amen:

John 5 (see too, John 3:16, 18)
24 He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kris Jordan

Acts 4:12
May 1, 2019
377
539
56
Southern California
Visit site
✟46,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
At best, this is a theological stretch. The most we can say with any accuracy is that we do not know.

No, what we can say is that God is a holy, just, righteous God and an infant or unborn child who never had the capacity to understand much of anything is not going to suffer for eternity in hell as a result. We trust God to judge rightly...always.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, what we can say is that God is a holy, just, righteous God and an infant or unborn child who never had the capacity to understand much of anything is not going to suffer for eternity in hell as a result. We trust God to judge rightly...always.
That is a question that has been pondered by Christians for many centuries. However, it has nothing to do with denying children the sacrament that God--not we ourselves--instituted, and did so for the benefit of all mankind.
 
Upvote 0