Scriptural proof that "born of water" is not human birth

[ByTheSpirit]

John 3:5 Unless one is born of water and Spirit they cannot enter God's Kingdom.

This is often misunderstood as referring to human birth. The reason for this misunderstand is two fold, well three maybe.

1. The modern church does not believe in baptismal regeneration
2. The next sentence from Jesus (get to this in a second)
3. Modern language loosely refers to birth as "of water" (more on this as well)

I'm not going to really delve into #1 because this whole OP will cover it in some detail. I'd like to start immediately with #2.

What is the passage in question?

Jesus tells Nicodemus as recorded by John. Unless one is born again, they cannot enter God's Kingdom (John 3:3)

This confuses Nicodemus and he retorts, "How can a man be born when old, does he reenter his mother's womb?"

Jesus then proceeds to correct his misunderstanding, "Unless one is born of water AND Spirit, they cannot enter God's Kingdom. What is born of flesh of flesh is flesh, that which born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I'm telling you you must be born again."

That middle sentence, born of flesh, people equate to being born of water. This is incorrect.

"Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. Natural procreation is not enough; there must be a second birth, a second begetting, this one of the Spirit. To support this view, ‘water’ has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for sperm. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for sperm are rare and late. It is true that in sources relevant to the Fourth Gospel water can be associated with fecundity and procreation in a general way (e.g. Song 4:12-13; Pr. 5:15-18),[1] but none is tied quite so clearly to sperm or to amniotic fluid as to make the connection here an obvious one. The Greek construction does not favour two births here. Moreover the entire expression ‘of water and the Spirit’ cries out to be read as the equivalent of anōthen, ‘from above’, if there is genuine parallelism between v. 3 and v. 5, and this too argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but one birth, not two." (D.A. Carson on the meaning of “born of water and of Spirit”, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, pp. 191-196.)

First, (tied to point 3), the ancient world did not refer to actual human birth as being "of water". In fact, in scripture, water is almost exclusively used (in a spiritual context) as referring to cleansing of some sort. The Great Flood cleansed the Earth of unrighteousness. The Red Sea separated the Israelites from their taskmasters. Namaan dipped in the Jordan and was cleansed of leprosy. Etc.

Those who know what Bible Study should look like, should know that when we start throwing modern language into the text, we can seriously misunderstand and misrepresent what is being said. We have to understand the text from the viewpoint and culture of when it was written and of whom it was written, then we can bridge that to apply to our modern times.

Also (IN CONTEXT) of John 3, Jesus is making water in reference to being born from above (born again). No way is being born of physical, human birth as born from above.

Lastly, from scripture as promised.

Even within John's own gospel he states exactly what the ancient world referred to as human birth (twice actually, once in the passage we are looking at)

John 1:13, "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

No where in that verse is water mentioned. Blood is. Flesh... flesh is (coming back to this), will of man is.

Now before I proceed, I have to hammer this point home. What is the immediate statement John makes prior to John 1:13?

John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,"

John is explaining the process here of being born again, in very simple terms here. Those who believe are born of God and become God's children. This is leading up to Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in a couple of chapters.

Those who believe are children of God, not those who are born of flesh.

John 3:6. That which is born of flesh is flesh...

Again another scriptural reference to what the Jews (the ones who wrote the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit who inspired them) referred to as physical human birth.

BORN OF FLESH

One more for you.

Galatians 4:23, "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh"

Born of the flesh.

Born of the flesh is how the Jews referred to the physical act of birth, of humans. No spiritual connotations at all. So when Jesus said "Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." He is not referring to being born of the flesh, but rather a new birth from above.

 

[bling]

John 3 Nicodemus

Nicodemus’ job was to help Jews with their problems, but was he addressing his own problem, since Jesus is telling him he has a huge problem, which Nichodemus had the answer to. This sounds very much like myself, so I can easily relate to Nicodemus and unfortunately react like Nicodemus, which is not good. We know more good we should have done or do, than we do.

One of Jesus’ jobs is to help individuals reach the next level in their spiritual growth, but they first got to do what they personally already know to do. If they are not going to do what they already know to do, there is no reason to try and move forward. Christ is hard on people not doing what they know they should do (“why come to me if you already know what to do”) and Christ is not “Mr. Answer Man”, but forces you to think and answer your own questions.

We need to try and put ourselves in Nicodemus’ shoes at that time and place, so what does Nicodemus know he should do (without any need for help from Christ) that he is not doing for his spiritual growth?

It is fine and nice Nicodemus wants to learn more about Christ, but again he is not dealing with the knowledge he already has, so what will he do with more knowledge of Christ?

Set Christ aside for a moment, who and what teaching is out there, that Nicodemus has to deal with? John the Baptist had to be a hot topic among all the Pharisees and in the Sanhedrin especially. Scholars like Nicodemus would have easily concluded John was a prophet of God, being totally consistent with scripture. All the common Jewish people accepted John’s message (the truth taught in scripture plus the prophecies concerning the Christ) and were baptized, so it would be much easier for Bible Scholars to understand the truth. They did not debate what he was saying with him or his disciples, so it appears there was nothing to debate.

A problem for Nicodemus is the fact: “if Nicodemus submits to John’s baptism he would have been kicked out of the Sanhedrin, so what did Nicodemus decide to do?”


One issue with the amniotic fluid be considered “water” in the first century does not hold well, since it was dirty (really being the baby’s pee). The “water” spoken of also seems to something should do and not something we all experience. (more can be said)

To make this Christian Baptism, means you have to be Christian immersion baptism as a requirement for entering the kingdom, so your hell bound without this baptism. Problems with this are: people even in the OT who were not baptized, are part of the Kingdom today. Christian baptism has not yet been instituted. There are all the other scriptures describing “born again”, becoming a child of God, born seems to believe in Christ, not needing water, and others.

My idea is this and I will emphasis the differences with the book’s conclusions: context, context, context, context and context


1. Why did Nicodemus describe Jesus as “Rabbi”?

2. The whole coming at night with Jesus saying: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. So what evil is Nicodemus involved in doing at this time?

3. Jesus says: 11 “Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony”, so who is the “we” making testimony and the “you people” not accepting?

4. The book likes to skip to the next individual encounter of Jesus, but sandwiched in-between is the narrative on John the Baptist, so why is John right after?

5. John says something very similar to Jesus: 32 “He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony” and goes on to say: 36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (Is that not John the Baptist’s testimony?)

I always say: “When I approach someone of different believes I start with where we agree and move from there”. Jesus would know the full extent of where Nicodemus was in agreement with the truth and hit him at the highest point, but would it be truth Nicodemus knew, but would not speak?

Nicodemus at this point would not be sure Jesus was the Messiah, but what did he know?

As we see from Jesus’ response to Nicodemus, Jesus is responding to what is on the heart of Nicodemus (this is like all of Jesus’ responses to all people who come to him) and from “I tell you” it is very individual. This is particularly for Nicodemus. Nicodemus cannot just shrug it off because Jesus presses him with 10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?”

Does that mean Nicodemus did understand, but was not admitting it?

If we could determine how far along Nicodemus was in his Spiritual growth, we could than know what Christ was addressing and pressing Nicodemus with. So where is Nicodemus from the context? What did he know (where they agree) and yet he was not teaching (thus doing evil)? What question did Nicodemus not want to address in the light publicly?

 

[fhansen]

John 3:5 Unless one is born of water and Spirit they cannot enter God's Kingdom.

This is often misunderstood as referring to human birth. The reason for this misunderstand is two fold, well three maybe.

1. The modern church does not believe in baptismal regeneration
2. The next sentence from Jesus (get to this in a second)
3. Modern language loosely refers to birth as "of water" (more on this as well)

I'm not going to really delve into #1 because this whole OP will cover it in some detail. I'd like to start immediately with #2.

What is the passage in question?

Jesus tells Nicodemus as recorded by John. Unless one is born again, they cannot enter God's Kingdom (John 3:3)

This confuses Nicodemus and he retorts, "How can a man be born when old, does he reenter his mother's womb?"

Jesus then proceeds to correct his misunderstanding, "Unless one is born of water AND Spirit, they cannot enter God's Kingdom. What is born of flesh of flesh is flesh, that which born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I'm telling you you must be born again."

That middle sentence, born of flesh, people equate to being born of water. This is incorrect.

"Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. Natural procreation is not enough; there must be a second birth, a second begetting, this one of the Spirit. To support this view, ‘water’ has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for sperm. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for sperm are rare and late. It is true that in sources relevant to the Fourth Gospel water can be associated with fecundity and procreation in a general way (e.g. Song 4:12-13; Pr. 5:15-18),[1] but none is tied quite so clearly to sperm or to amniotic fluid as to make the connection here an obvious one. The Greek construction does not favour two births here. Moreover the entire expression ‘of water and the Spirit’ cries out to be read as the equivalent of anōthen, ‘from above’, if there is genuine parallelism between v. 3 and v. 5, and this too argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but one birth, not two." (D.A. Carson on the meaning of “born of water and of Spirit”, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, pp. 191-196.)

First, (tied to point 3), the ancient world did not refer to actual human birth as being "of water". In fact, in scripture, water is almost exclusively used (in a spiritual context) as referring to cleansing of some sort. The Great Flood cleansed the Earth of unrighteousness. The Red Sea separated the Israelites from their taskmasters. Namaan dipped in the Jordan and was cleansed of leprosy. Etc.

Those who know what Bible Study should look like, should know that when we start throwing modern language into the text, we can seriously misunderstand and misrepresent what is being said. We have to understand the text from the viewpoint and culture of when it was written and of whom it was written, then we can bridge that to apply to our modern times.

Also (IN CONTEXT) of John 3, Jesus is making water in reference to being born from above (born again). No way is being born of physical, human birth as born from above.

Lastly, from scripture as promised.

Even within John's own gospel he states exactly what the ancient world referred to as human birth (twice actually, once in the passage we are looking at)

John 1:13, "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

No where in that verse is water mentioned. Blood is. Flesh... flesh is (coming back to this), will of man is.

Now before I proceed, I have to hammer this point home. What is the immediate statement John makes prior to John 1:13?

John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,"

John is explaining the process here of being born again, in very simple terms here. Those who believe are born of God and become God's children. This is leading up to Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in a couple of chapters.

Those who believe are children of God, not those who are born of flesh.

John 3:6. That which is born of flesh is flesh...

Again another scriptural reference to what the Jews (the ones who wrote the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit who inspired them) referred to as physical human birth.

BORN OF FLESH

One more for you.

Galatians 4:23, "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh"

Born of the flesh.

Born of the flesh is how the Jews referred to the physical act of birth, of humans. No spiritual connotations at all. So when Jesus said "Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." He is not referring to being born of the flesh, but rather a new birth from above.

Well, you're bound to get a bunch of retorts, also Scripture-based. But, in combination with Scripture, the fact that the early- and present- Churches in the east and west along with the ECFs taught baptismal regeneration should settle the matter.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Well, you're bound to get a bunch of retorts, also Scripture-based. But, in combination with Scripture, the fact that the early- and present- Churches in the east and west along with the ECFs taught baptismal regeneration should settle the matter.

It should but it won't.
You know I think the main issue is when Protestants broke from the RCC, they went so far in the other direction that anything associated with the RCC was denounced or rejected, including water baptism. Well maybe not everything, but most things.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

To make this Christian Baptism, means you have to be Christian immersion baptism as a requirement for entering the kingdom, so your hell bound without this baptism. Problems with this are: people even in the OT who were not baptized, are part of the Kingdom today. Christian baptism has not yet been instituted. There are all the other scriptures describing “born again”, becoming a child of God, born seems to believe in Christ, not needing water, and others.

These are all great and deep questions that I really don't have the time or mental capacity to handle at the moment. But I appreciate you expanding this discussion, seriously.

One bit I would like to discuss is what I quoted. I think it pertinent to compare our theology with what the early church practiced. They wouldn't have practiced something that wasn't scriptural or ordained by Christ himself. So what was their practice on baptism? They never preached the gospel without it involving baptism. Peter of course on Pentecost comes to mind. Repent and be baptized. Phillip and the Eunuch is probably the best example though, honestly. The bible doesn't state what Phillip preached, only that he talked to the Eunuch about Jesus (and by implication the gospel). But the eunuch's response was pretty significant. "Look! There's water! Why can't I get baptized right now?" And Phillip's response back was even more telling. He didn't tell him that first he had to pray a prayer, he didn't tell him he needed to attend a class on what water baptism is, he just did it. Some manuscripts include the verse where Phillip says if you believe you may, but that still doesn't take away from the urgency.

I'd say like this, physical realities are mirrored by spiritual. While I still adamantly denounce the idea that born of water is referring to a physical birth, I will say that it mirrors it. A baby is born when water is broken in the physical, and a babe in Christ is born when they break the waters of baptism in faith.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

John 3:5 Unless one is born of water and Spirit they cannot enter God's Kingdom.

This is often misunderstood as referring to human birth. The reason for this misunderstand is two fold, well three maybe.

1. The modern church does not believe in baptismal regeneration
2. The next sentence from Jesus (get to this in a second)
3. Modern language loosely refers to birth as "of water" (more on this as well)

I'm not going to really delve into #1 because this whole OP will cover it in some detail. I'd like to start immediately with #2.

What is the passage in question?

Jesus tells Nicodemus as recorded by John. Unless one is born again, they cannot enter God's Kingdom (John 3:3)

This confuses Nicodemus and he retorts, "How can a man be born when old, does he reenter his mother's womb?"

Jesus then proceeds to correct his misunderstanding, "Unless one is born of water AND Spirit, they cannot enter God's Kingdom. What is born of flesh of flesh is flesh, that which born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I'm telling you you must be born again."

That middle sentence, born of flesh, people equate to being born of water. This is incorrect.

"Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. Natural procreation is not enough; there must be a second birth, a second begetting, this one of the Spirit. To support this view, ‘water’ has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for sperm. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for sperm are rare and late. It is true that in sources relevant to the Fourth Gospel water can be associated with fecundity and procreation in a general way (e.g. Song 4:12-13; Pr. 5:15-18),[1] but none is tied quite so clearly to sperm or to amniotic fluid as to make the connection here an obvious one. The Greek construction does not favour two births here. Moreover the entire expression ‘of water and the Spirit’ cries out to be read as the equivalent of anōthen, ‘from above’, if there is genuine parallelism between v. 3 and v. 5, and this too argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but one birth, not two." (D.A. Carson on the meaning of “born of water and of Spirit”, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, pp. 191-196.)

First, (tied to point 3), the ancient world did not refer to actual human birth as being "of water". In fact, in scripture, water is almost exclusively used (in a spiritual context) as referring to cleansing of some sort. The Great Flood cleansed the Earth of unrighteousness. The Red Sea separated the Israelites from their taskmasters. Namaan dipped in the Jordan and was cleansed of leprosy. Etc.

Those who know what Bible Study should look like, should know that when we start throwing modern language into the text, we can seriously misunderstand and misrepresent what is being said. We have to understand the text from the viewpoint and culture of when it was written and of whom it was written, then we can bridge that to apply to our modern times.

Also (IN CONTEXT) of John 3, Jesus is making water in reference to being born from above (born again). No way is being born of physical, human birth as born from above.

Lastly, from scripture as promised.

Even within John's own gospel he states exactly what the ancient world referred to as human birth (twice actually, once in the passage we are looking at)

John 1:13, "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

No where in that verse is water mentioned. Blood is. Flesh... flesh is (coming back to this), will of man is.

Now before I proceed, I have to hammer this point home. What is the immediate statement John makes prior to John 1:13?

John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,"

John is explaining the process here of being born again, in very simple terms here. Those who believe are born of God and become God's children. This is leading up to Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in a couple of chapters.

Those who believe are children of God, not those who are born of flesh.

John 3:6. That which is born of flesh is flesh...

Again another scriptural reference to what the Jews (the ones who wrote the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit who inspired them) referred to as physical human birth.

BORN OF FLESH

One more for you.

Galatians 4:23, "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh"

Born of the flesh.

Born of the flesh is how the Jews referred to the physical act of birth, of humans. No spiritual connotations at all. So when Jesus said "Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." He is not referring to being born of the flesh, but rather a new birth from above.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth described Himself as " Living Waters" for a reason. It is His Holy Spirit that fills us with His Living Waters not the physical immersion of earthly water . Blessings.
Blessings

 

[bling]

These are all great and deep questions that I really don't have the time or mental capacity to handle at the moment. But I appreciate you expanding this discussion, seriously.

One bit I would like to discuss is what I quoted. I think it pertinent to compare our theology with what the early church practiced. They wouldn't have practiced something that wasn't scriptural or ordained by Christ himself. So what was their practice on baptism? They never preached the gospel without it involving baptism. Peter of course on Pentecost comes to mind. Repent and be baptized. Phillip and the Eunuch is probably the best example though, honestly. The bible doesn't state what Phillip preached, only that he talked to the Eunuch about Jesus (and by implication the gospel). But the eunuch's response was pretty significant. "Look! There's water! Why can't I get baptized right now?" And Phillip's response back was even more telling. He didn't tell him that first he had to pray a prayer, he didn't tell him he needed to attend a class on what water baptism is, he just did it. Some manuscripts include the verse where Phillip says if you believe you may, but that still doesn't take away from the urgency.

I'd say like this, physical realities are mirrored by spiritual. While I still adamantly denounce the idea that born of water is referring to a physical birth, I will say that it mirrors it. A baby is born when water is broken in the physical, and a babe in Christ is born when they break the waters of baptism in faith.

I do not know of any Christian group, who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation, since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do in order to help them and others.

I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You need to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you.

Adult believers water immersion is to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I do not know of any Christian group, who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation, since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do in order to help them and others.

I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You need to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you.

Adult believers water immersion is to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

God made the way for salvation yes. And when we obey what he has told us to do we are saved, so in a sense yes he does save us. But we have to obey him. No salvation without obedience. No salvation without faith, and faith that is not evidenced by works is not saving faith.

The biblical pattern for conversion is laid out in Acts. Starting in Acts 2:37-38. What should we do? Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit. Peter actually equates this to “calling upon the name of the Lord.” (Acts 2:21)

Acts 22:16, “Rise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

 

[bling]

God made the way for salvation yes. And when we obey what he has told us to do we are saved, so in a sense yes he does save us. But we have to obey him. No salvation without obedience. No salvation without faith, and faith that is not evidenced by works is not saving faith.

The biblical pattern for conversion is laid out in Acts. Starting in Acts 2:37-38. What should we do? Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit. Peter actually equates this to “calling upon the name of the Lord.” (Acts 2:21)

Acts 22:16, “Rise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

God does a lot more than just: "Make the way", when it comes to salvation. God will judge the hearts of people and not their poor performance. God has no check off list to see who made it. Yes! the heart of the person will be seen in their actions, but some have better results than others and some who do what we consider "good works" have the wrong motive (not a good heart motivating them).

 

[ByTheSpirit]

God does a lot more than just: "Make the way", when it comes to salvation. God will judge the hearts of people and not their poor performance. God has no check off list to see who made it. Yes! the heart of the person will be seen in their actions, but some have better results than others and some who do what we consider "good works" have the wrong motive (not a good heart motivating them).

I will grant you that the heart is what matters. But as you also said, a person's actions will show the condition of their heart. Just like Jesus said you will know a tree by it's fruit. Those are not contradictory ideas. I think we may be speaking the same thing just in different forms at least on this point.

As far as salvation goes. God made the way, but he doesn't force anyone into it. He provides the means, we have to accept it. His grace extends to all, but only some will receive it. Those who do will show by how they live that they have indeed received God.

 

[5thKingdom]

John 3:5 Unless one is born of water and Spirit they cannot enter God's Kingdom.

Water represents the Gospel. Born of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.
This is not hard, but you (try to) twist the Word of God to fit your system.
That is just pretending, in order to find comfort. It means nothing.

Jim

 

[fhansen]

It should but it won't.
You know I think the main issue is when Protestants broke from the RCC, they went so far in the other direction that anything associated with the RCC was denounced or rejected, including water baptism. Well maybe not everything, but most things.

Yes, the baby was pretty much thrown out with the bathwater. Doctrine, IMO, should've been left alone while abuses of power and failure to heed those very doctrines were in need of being addressed-and that's an ongoing need, in fact.

 

[5thKingdom]

Well, you're bound to get a bunch of retorts, also Scripture-based. But, in combination with Scripture, the fact that the early- and present- Churches in the east and west along with the ECFs taught baptismal regeneration should settle the matter.

The FACT is, the doctrines of early churches is the LAST measure for finding Biblical Truth.
Have you never read Revelation chapters 2 & 3. Do we follow the example of those churches?
Notice in the chapters, those corrupt churches contained FEW saved individuals and MANY unsaved
pretenders. No different than the churches today.


Jesus was very clear [Mat 13] that the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" (churches) would contain:
(a) relatively FEW saved "wheat/sheep" (sown by God) and
(b) MANY unsaved "tares/goats" (sown by Satan)


Jesus also promised we could know who are unsaved "tares" by their "fruit".
Of course their "fruit" included their doctrines. We can know [Gal 5] those "churches"
and individuals who follow heresy shall NOT enter into the eternal "Kingdom of God"


Gal 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, HERESIES,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have
also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.


To appeal to the "traditions" of man as some authority of Biblical Truth is a very poor method
for understanding the Gospel. It is a very good method of using the corruption and heresies
of unsaved "tares/goats" in the early churches as justification of teaching the heresies today.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

As far as salvation goes. God made the way, but he doesn't force anyone into it. He provides the means, we have to accept it. His grace extends to all, but only some will receive it. Those who do will show by how they live that they have indeed received God.

That is the traditional synergistic theory of the Gospel. It is contested by many in the church.
There is also a traditional monergistic Gospel of Sovereign Grace which you do not mention...
how convenient.

Since the teachings of the Apostles there has always been a BROAD WAY leading "Christians"
into destruction - and a narrow way leading (real) Christians into eternal life.

When you proclaim your synergistic "gospel" with a pretense that it's the ONLY or ACCEPTED
Gospel of the church - you are being less than honest. You are "selling" something.
Jesus and the Apostles did not "sell" anything - but they did teach "election"
and the Sovereignty of God in the salvation process.

They clearly taught that some men were NEVER MEANT to be saved.
So, to pretend otherwise is being less than honest.

Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

God made the way for salvation yes. And when we obey what he has told us to do we are saved, so in a sense yes he does save us. But we have to obey him. No salvation without obedience. No salvation without faith, and faith that is not evidenced by works is not saving faith.

Rom 3:10-12
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


The PROBLEM with your synergistic "works gospel", whereby MAN initiates his salvation,
is that the Bible clearly PROMISES, in the Old Testament and New Testament that mankind
will NEVER seek God before regeneration.

Repentance is the RESULT of regeneration and never the CAUSE.

This is Christian Theology 101.
This is what the Bible teaches as Gospel.

Jim

 

[pescador]

There is no other valid explanation of "born of water" and "born of the Spirit" other than a) natural birth and b) spiritual birth. There are no other births!

John 3:3-6, " Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Notice that Jesus did not say, "I'm not talking about being in his mother's womb, but about something entirely different." He did say, "What is born of the flesh...", referring to the natural birth.

I believe what the Bible clearly says, not the song-and-dance of those who want to "interpret" it according to some predetermined doctrine.

 

[pescador]

Regarding ByTheSpirits misinterpretation, it is easy to derive all kinds of myths from the Bible if one so intends. I can prove, for example, that Christians are actually not humans...

"But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children —children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God." John 1:12-13

See how easy it is to come up with false doctrine? The Bible says what it says, and I, for one, believe and accept it.

Sola scriptura!

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Regarding ByTheSpirits misinterpretation, it is easy to derive all kinds of myths from the Bible if one so intends. I can prove, for example, that Christians are actually not humans...

"But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children —children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God." John 1:12-13

See how easy it is to come up with false doctrine? The Bible says what it says, and I, for one, believe and accept it.

Sola scriptura!

Interesting theories, but I'm afraid it doesn't quite add up. It's always funny to me that people we disagree with are misinterpreting the scriptures. It's never us who may actually be wrong.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

There is no other valid explanation of "born of water" and "born of the Spirit" other than a) natural birth and b) spiritual birth. There are no other births!

John 3:3-6, " Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Notice that Jesus did not say, "I'm not talking about being in his mother's womb, but about something entirely different." He did say, "What is born of the flesh...", referring to the natural birth.

I believe what the Bible clearly says, not the song-and-dance of those who want to "interpret" it according to some predetermined doctrine.

Sooooo what exactly does water have to do with the flesh since you seem to have missed the bit about born of water is not being born of the flesh?

 

[pescador]

Interesting theories, but I'm afraid it doesn't quite add up. It's always funny to me that people we disagree with are misinterpreting the scriptures. It's never us who may actually be wrong.

I agree totally that people we disagree with are misinterpreting the scriptures. It's never us who may actually be wrong. Simply because it doesn't add up to you is a case in point.

Nicodemus was was a member of the Jewish ruling council, not some uneducated man. He said to Jesus, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” Clearly he was talking about natural birth, and Jesus replied that there were two kinds of births. John 3:5-6, " Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

He didn't say anything about baptism (or any other misinterpretation people come up with). He is talking about natural birth, i.e., "of the flesh".