What is "born of water"

[Kris Jordan]

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.

Hi Albion,

Water baptism does not impart saving grace to anyone. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that, hence the difference between being "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." But something tells me we will never agree on this one.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,

Water baptism does not impart saving grace to anyone. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that, hence the difference between being "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." But something tells me we will never agree on this one.

Hi, Kris!

You are adept at relaying the beliefs as they are held by a certain segment of Christians, but somewhere or other in these posts I hope to see some discussion break out.

By the way, "Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that" is agreed to by all of us, so that comment is either a misunderstanding or just what Baptists like to say to people who believe in infant baptism. I don't know which it is in this case.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hi, Kris!

You are adept at relaying the beliefs as they are held by a certain segment of Christians, but somewhere or other in these posts I hope to see some discussion break out.

By the way, "Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that" is agreed to by all of us, so that comment is either a misunderstanding or just what Baptists like to say to people who believe in infant baptism. I don't know which it is in this case.

As I know you are aware, many Protestants who practice the baptism of infants find theological means in which saving faith is transmitted to the infant through the rite of baptism. To do so, however, distances saving faith from a conscious, intelligent understanding to a mysterious, unconscious spiritual reality.

 

[Kris Jordan]

Hi, Kris!

You are adept at relaying the beliefs as they are held by a certain segment of Christians, but somewhere or other in these posts I hope to see some discussion break out.

By the way, "Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that" is agreed to by all of us, so that comment is either a misunderstanding or just what Baptists like to say to people who believe in infant baptism. I don't know which it is in this case.

LOL! There are other Christians (and Christian denominations) who are not Baptist but who disagree about infant baptism or the purpose of water baptism altogether. I get that whole "Baptist" comment a lot.

I personally don't agree biblically that baptism imparts anything supernatural to save us. God's grace is what saves us and the vehicle by which it is imparted to us is faith in Jesus for what He did on the cross. Therefore, water baptism is a symbolic (and testimonial) act of what has occurred within that nobody can see -- in other words, it publically demonstrates dying to our selves and our life of sin and being raised up in new life in Christ. Therefore, it is an act of obedience to be done after one is saved but it does nothing to facilitate the saving process.

 

[Albion]

As I know you are aware, many Protestants who practice the baptism of infants find theological means in which saving faith is transmitted to the infant through the rite of baptism. To do so, however, distances saving faith from a conscious, intelligent understanding to a mysterious, unconscious spiritual reality.

I think that that is one of the most common mistakes that opponents of traditional baptism make.

 

[charsan]

What is "born of water"

Baptism is born of water and is necessary for initial Salvation. As St. Peter said "Repent and be baptized" when asked about being saved

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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?

I tend to read the passage as meaning the water breaking during natural birth.

I also understand that the ancient traditions equate the birth by water as a baptism. However, since the scriptures say that the baptism is symbolic of death, it cannot be a birth.

 

[Albion]

LOL! There are other Christians (and Christian denominations) who are not Baptist but who disagree about infant baptism or the purpose of water baptism altogether. I get that whole "Baptist" comment a lot.

It is true that there are other denominations, but the Baptists are the largest group among them and most of the others descend from the Anabaptist movement of the past, as do today's Baptists and most non-denominational congregations.

In other words, it is not such an issue as you are saying, but I will consider saying "Baptists and their offshoots" in the future...or "most notably, the Baptists" or something like that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that that is one of the most common mistakes that opponents of traditional baptism make.

Here is the paragraph concerning baptism from the Wikipedia article on Lutheran sacaraments.

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which one is initiated into the Christian faith. Lutherans teach that at baptism, they receive God's promise of salvation. At the same time, they receive the faith they need to be open to God's grace. Lutherans baptize by sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the person (or infant) as the Trinitarian formula is spoken. Lutherans teach baptism to be necessary, but not absolutely necessary, for salvation. That means that although baptism is indeed necessary for salvation, it is, as Luther said, contempt for the sacraments that condemns, not lack of the sacraments. Therefore, one is not denied salvation merely because one may have never had the opportunity to be baptized. This is what is meant by saying that baptism is necessary—but not absolutely necessary—to salvation.

 

[Kris Jordan]

It is true that there are other denominations, but the Baptists are the largest group among them and most of the others descend from the Anabaptist movement of the past, as do today's Baptists and most non-denominational congregations.

In other words, it is not such an issue as you are saying, but I will consider saying "Baptists and their offshoots" in the future...or "most notably, the Baptists" or something like that.

No worries. I just thought it was funny to be (again) labeled on this forum as something I am not.

 

[DamianWarS]

I tend to read the passage as meaning the water breaking during natural birth.

I also understand that the ancient traditions equate the birth by water as a baptism. However, since the scriptures say that the baptism is symbolic of death, it cannot be a birth.

that's an interesting point but does not baptism more fully represent the death of the old and birth of the new? a new birth must first emerge out of the water before it is actually is out of the water. (both for natural and spiritual)

I think the contrasting terms of flesh/spirit fit the order of "water and spirit" but I also recognize the dominate role baptism has with salvation as well as it's symbolic role for new life and if water is likened to natural birth than this element missing.

Baptism itself is nothing as Peter tells us "Baptism...now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," simply cleansing rituals in themselves are unable to save us by themselves and need a divine element fused with them in order for them to have a spiritual product.

My conclusion in the text is that I'm leaning toward "water and spirit" meaning water and spirit working together to produce new life/new birth which is baptism. The "water" does not stand alone and in itself is not baptism but rather both the water and spirit working together is the baptism, the product of which is a new birth.

with the isolated text and knowing it was before any presented baptism events in John it seems rather cyptic for Jesus to be vauge with his words to Nicodemus, however it is clear in John 3 Nicodemus wasn't really interested in the truth and just was claiming ignroance so it would make sense that Jesus doesn't try that hard to unpack it because it was falling on deaf ears. still baptism is a valued aspect of salvation and these reference of "water and spirit" may be terms used per-baptism.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

that's an interesting point but does not baptism more fully represent the death of the old and birth of the new? a new birth must first emerge out of the water before it is actually is out of the water. (both for natural and spiritual)

I think the contrasting terms of flesh/spirit fit the order of "water and spirit" but I also recognize the dominate role baptism has with salvation as well as it's symbolic role for new life and if water is likened to natural birth than this element missing.

Baptism itself is nothing as Peter tells us "Baptism...now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," simply cleansing rituals in themselves are unable to save us by themselves and need a divine element fused with them in order for them to have a spiritual product.

My conclusion in the text is that I'm leaning toward "water and spirit" meaning water and spirit working together to produce new life/new birth which is baptism. The "water" does not stand alone and in itself is not baptism but rather both the water and spirit working together is the baptism, the product of which is a new birth.

with the isolated text and knowing it was before any presented baptism events in John it seems rather cyptic for Jesus to be vauge with his words to Nicodemus, however it is clear in John 3 Nicodemus wasn't really interested in the truth and just was claiming ignroance so it would make sense that Jesus doesn't try that hard to unpack it because it was falling on deaf ears. still baptism is a valued aspect of salvation and these reference of "water and spirit" may be terms used per-baptism.

The main reason I think it's about natural birth is because Nicodemus asked prior to that, should a man go into the womb a second time?

The conversation wasn't even about baptism.

 

[DamianWarS]

The main reason I think it's about natural birth is because Nicodemus asked prior to that, should a man go into the womb a second time?

The conversation wasn't even about baptism.

Nicodemus wasn't that dumb. it's not difficult to see that Jesus is not talking about a literal birth and Nicodemus asking should a man go into the womb a second time is not him actually asking that it's him indirectly entering in this sort of honour/shame dialogue.

Nicodemus is interested but hesitant so he meets Jesus at night, he then honours him by saying he is from God. Jesus doesn't play around and gets straight to point speaking of being born again. Nicodemus is interested but he plays dumb as a way of not getting too close but still asking. Christ explains it to him and Nicodemus still plays dumb so now this honour/shame switches to the other side and Jesus shames him. Had Jesus continued with more I'm sure Nicodemus would have replied with some vague answer again something like "it's just so hard to understand".

Nicodemus may have been a type of seeker but he kept a distance and Jesus called him out. natural birth is automatically inherited as soon as we begin to talk about people or just by using a pronoun like he or she. The fact that we are breathing means we have gone through a natural birth so why even bring it up? it's already on the table and everyone has gone through it as it is an inherited part of life. Jesus is not talking about natural birth, he is talking about being born again. So when Jesus says "unless one..." natural birth is immediately invoked simply by using the pronoun "one". the rest is explaining born again which is the water and the spirit part and it why I am looking at it now as both refering to baptism. the word baptise itself is just a common greek word that means "to immerse" so there is nothing sacred about using this word to describe what we call baptism and saying "water and spirit" can be just as productive.

 

[Albion]

Here is the paragraph concerning baptism from the Wikipedia article on Lutheran sacaraments.

Do you have a particular interest in the Lutherans?

 

[Albion]

No worries. I just thought it was funny to be (again) labeled on this forum as something I am not.

I don't recall labelling you at all, Kris.

Your profile does not tell us what denomination, if any, you prefer, and I let it go at that.

Nevertheless, when you repeatedly instruct us in the Baptist thinking on the subject of Baptism, it is fair for the reader to note that fact.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Nicodemus wasn't that dumb. it's not difficult to see that Jesus is not talking about a literal birth and Nicodemus asking should a man go into the womb a second time is not him actually asking that it's him indirectly entering in this sort of honour/shame dialogue.

Nicodemus is interested but hesitant so he meets Jesus at night, he then honours him by saying he is from God. Jesus doesn't play around and gets straight to point speaking of being born again. Nicodemus is interested but he plays dumb as a way of not getting too close but still asking. Christ explains it to him and Nicodemus still plays dumb so now this honour/shame switches to the other side and Jesus shames him. Had Jesus continued with more I'm sure Nicodemus would have replied with some vague answer again something like "it's just so hard to understand".

Nicodemus may have been a type of seeker but he kept a distance and Jesus called him out. natural birth is automatically inherited as soon as we begin to talk about people or just by using a pronoun like he or she. The fact that we are breathing means we have gone through a natural birth so why even bring it up? it's already on the table and everyone has gone through it as it is an inherited part of life. Jesus is not talking about natural birth, he is talking about being born again. So when Jesus says "unless one..." natural birth is immediately invoked simply by using the pronoun "one". the rest is explaining born again which is the water and the spirit part and it why I am looking at it now as both refering to baptism. the word baptise itself is just a common greek word that means "to immerse" so there is nothing sacred about using this word to describe what we call baptism and saying "water and spirit" can be just as productive.

Another reason I believe what I believe is that conversation away from what the passage is actually saying.