Is Baptismal Regeneration False?

[BABerean2]

Meaning in this case you have to ask, 'Has ANYONE, whether in Greek, or even in ANY OTHER KNOWN LANGUAGE WHETHER ANCIENT OR MODERN, ever used the expression 'born of water' as an idiom for 'born of womb'?

Nobody talks that way. There is no historic precedent for, or evidence of, such an idiom.

We are not talking about just anybody.
We are talking about the Son of God.

Was Nicodemus talking about natural child-birth?
Take a survey of 100 women who have had a child through natural child-birth, and ask them to describe the process.
How many of them will use the word "water" during their narrative?

How many times is the word "water" used in John 3:1-16, and how many times is the word "spirit" used in the same passage?

Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:


Why did Christ chastise Nicodemus for not knowing about being "born again" of the Spirit of God?

Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

.

 

[JAL]

You keep answering objections with questions that lead nowhere, as if you were making a point, but typically no point is made, that I can see.

We are not talking about just anybody.
We are talking about the Son of God.

Was Nicodemus talking about natural child-birth?
Take a survey of 100 women who have had a child through natural child-birth, and ask them to describe the process.
How many of them will use the word "water" during their narrative?

First of all, your proposed scenario is a radical change of CONTEXT. Yes, water will inevitably be mentioned in a discussion whose CONTEXT is EXPLICITLY STATED TO BE, "Let's discuss the physical elements of natural birth'. But even in THAT context, you will never hear any woman say, 'Well, back when my son was born of water...'

Nobody talks that way. On this planet, tens of billions of women have had 6,000 years of opportunity to use that kind of idiom and yet it is still UNPRECEDENTED and UNHEARD OF. That kind of reading of the text is pure fantasy. Even if that WERE what Jesus intended to connote, solid hermeneutics won't allow it because it MUST have rules to avoid utter chaos. It needs rules precisely BECAUSE it's an imperfect science.

Conclusion: You cannot justifiably reach that conclusion HERMENEUTICALLY. Now if you feel God gave it to you by revelatoin, fine, but don't claim you got it from Bible-study. That's nonsense.

How many times is the word "water" used in John 3:1-16, and how many times is the word "spirit" used in the same passage?

And? More questions leading nowhere?

Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:


Why did Christ chastise Nicodemus for not knowing about being "born again" of the Spirit of God?

And? More questions leading nowhere?

 

[BABerean2]

First of all, your proposed scenario is a radical change of CONTEXT. Yes, water will inevitably be mentioned in a discussion whose CONTEXT is EXPLICITLY STATED TO BE, "Let's discuss the physical elements of natural birth'.

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

.

 

[JAL]

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

.

Jesus spoke of a new birth. Nicodemus knew only of natural birth and therefore, naturally, asked Jesus if that was the birth in question here.

So? And? Is there a point here?

I still don't see any warrant here for chaotic hermeneutics.

 

[BABerean2]

So? And? Is there a point here?

I still don't see any warrant here for chaotic hermeneutics.

Any unbiased witness would have to admit a connection between the word "water" and natural childbirth.

However, some of us are not unbiased witnesses.

If you can interview 100 women at random about the birthing process and none of them mention the word "water", we might consider your viewpoint...

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Any unbiased witness would have to admit a connection between the word "water" and natural childbirth.

However, some of us are not unbiased witnesses.

If you can interview 100 women at random about the birthing process and none of them mention the word "water", we might consider your viewpoint...

.

And if Jesus was talking about natural childbirth this would be a decent enough argument. But that's not what Jesus was talking about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BCsenior]

"For Christ did not send me to baptize,
but to preach the gospel" (Paul, 1 Cor 1:17)

 

[ViaCrucis]

"For Christ did not send me to baptize,
but to preach the gospel" (Paul, 1 Cor 1:17)

Context.

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" The Apostle asks rhetorically. He is glad that he did not perform many baptisms among the Corinthians because he does not want to contribute to the schisms and factions happening there. So, indeed, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." None of God's ministers are of greater importance than the other, for all is done for the glory of God and the building up of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

Any unbiased witness would have to admit a connection between the word "water" and natural childbirth.

Water is connected to virtually everything on planet earth. That fact doesn't warrant reading into this verse any topic found on planet earth.

If you can interview 100 women at random about the birthing process and none of them mention the word "water", we might consider your viewpoint...

You just repeated an argument that I already addressed. That's not really an answer.

Moreover I've only been addressing ONE of the problems with your interpretation. Another problem, as ViaCrucis already noted, is that the NT nowhere mentions natural birth as a prerequisite for entrance into the Kingdom of God. In a discussion of men - who obviously exist only by virtue of natural birth - it doesn't make sense to mention natural birth as a prerequisite for salvation.

 

[BABerean2]

And if Jesus was talking about natural childbirth this would be a decent enough argument. But that's not what Jesus was talking about.

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

.

 

[JAL]

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Let's bear in mind a couple of important points.
(1) Tautology
(2) Instrumentality

While 'born of water' would be an unprecedented idiom for natural birth, and thus an unwarranted reading, it is NOT unprecedented to use language tautological and instrumental - such is verse 6.

It's not a clear instrumental statement to say, 'born of water' because water isn't the ONLY factor in natural birth. There are genitals, fallopian tubes, conception, contractions, etc. However, all these things involve 'flesh'. It is instrumental to say born of flesh, and tautological to say, 'what is born of flesh is flesh'. This creates a foundation for Christ's tautolological conclusoin that what is born of Spirit is spirit.

To summarize, 'born of water' doesn't make sense for natural birth because it utterly fails of instrumentality. Natural birth isn't CAUSED by water. At most, water is one of the elements near-last in a long chain of events.

Christ's statement about 'born of water' IS indeed instrumental, he is saying at 3:5 that water CAUSES the new birth, in tandem with the other party mentioned in that verse.

 

[JAL]

The reality is that the church still hasn't provided a fully seamless, satisfactory, unproblemmatical reading of John 3:5. I can give you one, but you won't much like it. It's the only one I know of.

 

[BABerean2]

To summarize, 'born of water' doesn't make sense for natural birth because it utterly fails of instrumentality.

Tell that to a woman whose water breaks...

Tell that to the man who gets down on his hands and knees and uses paper towels to clean up the liquid from the floor...

.

 

[JAL]

Tell that to a woman whose water breaks...

Tell that to the man who gets down on his hands and knees and uses paper towels to clean up the liquid from the floor...

.

I don't have to tell her. If she has any common sense, she'll admit that neither drinking a cup of water, nor even bathing in it, created her child. Water is not the ultimate cause of natural birth.

 

[BABerean2]

I don't have to tell her. If she has any common sense, she'll admit that neither drinking a cup of water, nor even bathing in it, created her child. Water is not the ultimate cause of natural birth.

Try to ignore the fact that the baby lives in the water inside the womb for about 9 months, and the fact that this water comes forth at the time of child birth, and the fact that Nicodemus was clearly referring to child birth...

.

 

[BABerean2]

I don't have to tell her. If she has any common sense, she'll admit that neither drinking a cup of water, nor even bathing in it, created her child. Water is not the ultimate cause of natural birth.

Maybe a woman who has had 6 children can explain it to you.
This woman is a Christian who does seem to a have a "common sense" explanation of John chapter 3.

Her explanation of "born of water" is about 15 minutes after it starts.

I do not agree completely with her views of eschatology found near the end.

.

 

[JAL]

Maybe a woman who has had 6 children can explain it to you.
This woman is a Christian who does seem to a have a "common sense" explanation of John chapter 3.

Her explanation of "born of water" is about 15 minutes after it starts.

I do not agree completely with her views of eschatology found near the end.

.

Why should I care what some lady said on a video? If you have an argument,make it.

"Born of water" has remained an exegetical thorn in the side of faith-alone Christians for almost 2,000 years. NATURALLY you, the woman on the video, and others will grasp at straws such as natural birth in hope of an exegetical solution. Having a woman repeat it on a video doesn't make it true, however.

The passage is difficult because church metaphysics is off-course. Theologians have given us the wrong understanding of God, which is probably one of the reasons such passages exist in Scripture, in hopes of correcting us. But it seems we're too hard-headed to think outside the box. I guess it will never change.

This passage is a walk in the park, when viewed through the lens of proper biblical metaphysics.

 

[BABerean2]

This passage is a walk in the park, when viewed through the lens of proper biblical metaphysics.

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Since John 3:1-16 has absolutely nothing to do with child birth in your opinion, please help the rest of us understand your exegesis of the passage...

.

 

[JAL]

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Since John 3:1-16 has absolutely nothing to do with child birth in your opinion, please help the rest of us understand your exegesis of the passage...

Thanks for asking. One more preface. The church fathers were great scholars. Among them was a consensus on baptismal regeneration. It's not that natural birth never occurred to them (they were too smart to not be aware of that possibility), but, for one thing, another factor took precedence. There is a special Greek construct without parallel in English. In that construct, the following two phrases have a different force:
(1) born of water and Spirit
(2) born of water and of the Spirit
In #2 the preposition 'of' is repeated. In ancient Greek, version #1 was reputed to connote a co-unity and co-equality of the two parties working together to achieve one action, at least more so than version #2. Had Jesus WANTED to indicate two separate, disjunct realities (i.e. natural birth followed later by the new birth), He would more likely have opted for version #2. Jesus is indeed saying that water and Spirit play co-equal roles in effecting the new birth.

Nonetheless salvation is by faith alone (John 3:16). The metaphysical error is that God is not a Spirit (and yes, I am a Trinitarian). He is a physical being, and ALL the biblical data points in that direction. The word Spirit is not even a credible translation of the text, the Third Person's real name is the Holy Wind/Breath. I prove this on a thread for example (start with post #3 and just read the next few posts).
Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

Because God is physical, He can assume any material form, not just Breath/Wind, but Water for example. The proper reading of John 3:5 is this:
"Unless a man is born of Water (Hudor) and Wind (Pneuma), he cannot see the Kingdom of God".
Jesus called it being born from above. This is Water and Wind from above.
It's even more lucid at verse 8. Verse 8 is NOT A METAPHOR.
"The Wind (Pneuma) blows wherever it pleases to go. You hear its sound, but know not whence it came or where it's going. So it is of everyone born of the Wind (Pneuma)."

Thus, the Wind of verse 5 is the SAME Wind of verse 8.

Still not convinced? Look again at the first part of verse 8:
"The Wind (Pneuma) blows wherever it pleases to go."
Ordinary wind doesn't blow wherever it WANTS TO GO. It goes wherever the forces of nature CARRY IT. This is divine Living Wind at issue here.

Regeneration is a physical process, accomplished by Water and Wind. Think about it. Thought - and therefore saving faith - occurs in the brain. The brain organizes our (physical) currents of thought, helping them to flow in beneficial directions conducive to intelligence, emotional well being, sensory perception, etc. These flows are LIQUID FLOWS (electrochemical streams). The ONLY for way for God to regenerate you (steer your thoughts toward Christ) is to interact with you in liquid forms.

Considerable scholarship ties John 3:5 to statements in Ezekiel 36. Here's how the new birth is described in Ezekiel. I'm going to reference the Greek Old Testament (the Septaugint), to help you see the parallel. "I will sprinkle clean Water (Hudor) on you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26...And I will put my Wind/Breath (Pneuma) within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

Literally, God uses Water (from above) to wash away your sins.

And more than that. Regeneration and sanctificatoin are two sides of a coin (I can't fully discuss this here). Part of your heart was cleansed, but sanctification is the process of cleansing (regenerating) the remainder of your heart. Since the early apostles were AUTHORIZED BY GOD to baptize (unlike today's ministers), God endorsed their baptisms by intermixing HIS Water with ordinary water. That is why Paul can speak of additional cleansings provided by the waters of baptism, washing away sins. Please don't presume this is still happening today.

 

[BABerean2]

Literally, God uses Water (from above) to wash away your sins.

And more than that. Regeneration and sanctificatoin are two sides of a coin (I can't fully discuss this here). Part of your heart was cleansed, but sanctification is the process of cleansing (regenerating) the remainder of your heart. Since the early apostles were AUTHORIZED BY GOD to baptize (unlike today's ministers), God endorsed their baptisms by intermixing HIS Water with ordinary water. That is why Paul can speak of additional cleansings provided by the waters of baptism, washing away sins. Please don't presume this is still happening today.

Did Paul think water baptism was important?

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.


Did John the Baptist know the difference between water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Luk 3:16 John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.


Who is the master teacher, based on the words of Christ?

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.


When is a person "regenerated" by receiving the Holy Spirit? Is it when they are water baptized?

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,


Can a person be a follower of Christ and not have the Holy
Spirit?

Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.


1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.


Are you saying that babies were "regenerated" by giving them the Holy Spirit during water baptism, by the early Church leaders?

.