John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[CadyandZoe]

I asked for a reformer that baptized with metaphorical water and Enoch111 replied with John Calvin. He baptized with real, wet physical water regardless of his denial of regeneration, so Enoch's reply is meaningless. I am still waiting for a name of a mainline Protestant denomination that teaches waterless baptism.

Unlike you, some of us aren't subject to human authority with regard to belief and practice. For this reason, what Calvin or Luthor said about a particular subject is informative, but not binding. For this reason, your challenge is meaningless.

 

[ChristisGod]

John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

When were you first born? In the natural. Through your mothers "natural" womb.

John 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 reply?
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

And the VERY NEXT scripture?

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

So, would not "natural" birth be of the "flesh? I see nothing of baptism anywhere near these verses, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A few more verses Jesus says,

John 3:12
"If I have told you earthly things, (which He did...born of flesh?) and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
(Born of The Spirit)

He spoke of natural, birth. "born of water and THEN born of Spirit...? Flesh/Spirit...I see nothing about baptism.
These verses have always had me wondering and, not saying that I'm correct but, I really do not think it is about the water baptism of John.
This is where I have landed so far and...right or wrong, He will reveal it to me.

Love you bro!!!

Indeed you are correct especially when we break down the passage with its contrasts and comparisons.


John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?


So lets go through this point by point.

1- to enter the kingdom of God a person must be born again( a 2nd time)
2- flesh gives birth to flesh ( 1st birth )
3- the Spirit gives birth to spirit( 2nd birth )
4- the wind(spirit) blows wherever IT pleases
5- we hear the sound of the wind but do not know where it is coming from or going to
6- the same with the Spirit( we see its effects but not its coming or going)
7- the spirit is the same as the wind- it does as it pleases and we see its effects in both the natural(wind) and supernatural ( spirit)
8- nowhere in this passage does it say that a man chooses to be born again
9- the new birth is compared to the physical birth just as the wind is compared to the spirits work
10- in both cases of birth God is the Active One and the one who is birthed is passive in the process.

conclusion: just as flesh gives birth to flesh( 1st birth as a person) so to does the Spirit give birth to the spirit(the new birth- born again)

There can be no other reading into the text but what has been outlined in the 10 points. Those 10 points are directly from the text.


Regeneration-born again has to do with the wind in the context and parallels the new birth in that process. The serpent illustration is not being born again and Jesus is teaching something else than the new birth afterwards. He is explaining why He was sent into the world after His teaching on the new birth. The serpent illustration being lifted up has to do with Jesus death on the cross when He paid the penalty for sin. 3:14-15

The topic of the OP is specifically the New Birth, Born Again of the Spirit which is compared to the Wind and how it operates.

Do you control or have any influence over the wind ?

Can you call the wind ?

Neither can a person call Gods Spirit in the new birth as its an Act of GOD. See John 1:13. Born again by God.

The PARALLELS and CONTRASTS Jesus makes in the passage are the following 10 off the top of my head reading through the passage :

1- the 2 births
2- the wind and the spirit
3- flesh and the spirit
4- water and spirit
5- earthly and heavenly things
6- effects of both the wind and spirit
7- the seen with the unseen
8- the physical with the supernatural
9- knowing and not knowing, understanding and not understanding
10- entering the kingdom and not entering the kingdom

hope this helps !!!

 

[Enoch111]

There can be no other reading into the text but what has been outlined in the 10 points. Those 10 points are directly from the text.

And you have conveniently ignored the fact that "water and Spirit" were joined together when Christ was speaking of the New Birth. The New Birth involves BOTH the supernatural power of the water of the Word of God (the Gospel) and the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit.

The new birth is indeed an act of God, and the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16). So without saving faith through the hearing of the Gospel, there is no regeneration. And without the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit upon the soul of the believer, there is no New Birth.

Following the New Birth, Christian baptism is a command. But the water of baptism is not for the washing of the soul nor for regeneration (as is falsely taught by many). It is a sign that the soul has been washed in the blood of the Lamb, and that the believer has died with Christ and then been raised to walk in newness of life.

 

[GracePeace]

I guess I'm trying to get everyone to dig below the surface of our common expressions and avoid using platitudes.

I think you are coming to the conversation with your own baggage and reading that in to what I'm saying rather than just taking me at my word.

Think about it. What does it mean to be "washed" by a word? Do all words have this quality or are some words unique?

The point was that the Word is called "water"-"washing" isn't the discussion.

On the other hand, maybe Paul was taking a short cut with his language, alluding to a much larger picture?

I think an examination of the text will reveal that Paul wasn't talking about salvation as such, he was talking about holiness.

Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

In this context, Paul is giving us examples from our everyday lives, to illustrate his initial exhortation to "walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel." With regard to marriage, what does it look like for those "in Christ" to live with a spouse? For the husband's part, he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love his church, he sanctified her with his word. What does that mean? Is Paul talking about the Bible here? I don't think so. A husband doesn't sanctify his wife with the Bible. Rather, a husband sanctifies his wife with a promise to love, honor and cherish her. In other words, a husband sanctifies his wife with his promises. Word = promise.

Likewise, Christ sanctifies his church with his promises. Among those promises is his promise that his disciples will never die.

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

Paul's point is to say, since Jesus will keep his promise to his church, a husband ought to keep promises he made to his wife such as: love, honor, protect, and nurture.

"Gave Himself up for her" gives it away : this is talking about Christ's self-sacrificial love on the Cross, and that was the only way He could save the bride, and in the same way the husband should sacrifice himself to provide for his bride what she needs.

I'm not able to make the connection between Paul's point here, and Jesus' point in John 3. They seem to be talking about two different things.

Again, we have established that "the Word" is, called "water". That is all.

 

[GracePeace]

In other words, you don't think Catholics have a right to a voice that you give to yourself. I will not be muzzled to appease your psychotic anti-Catholic bigotry.

I am not speaking about Catholicism here and then asking others not to speak about it. That is a false accusation which is a violation of the Decalogue. Control yourself. If you can't control your tongue your religion is worthless.

 

[GracePeace]

If you agree that "water" is inseparable from "spirit", then yes. Nowhere does scripture separate the two regarding baptism. We are baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", an embodiment of the Word of God. Without the Word of God, it can't be a valid baptism. Without water, it can't be a valid baptism either. Is it possible we can agree without your cheap shots?

We see that if Protestants baptize with water using the correct words (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), the baptism is considered to be valid, and this is no “novelty” of Vatican II. It’s reasonable to be uncertain in specific cases, until we know whether the correct form of words was used or not. But for the vast majority of Protestants, this is just not an issue. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans all use the correct formula.

I wasn't asking you TO see it that way but whether you HAD--I don't need anything from you or anyone else.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Provide proof.

From Ariel .org. I erred on one- it was not circumcisaion but bar mitvah
Born Again
Q: How does the Jewish phrase “born again” relate to Yeshua's new usage?
A: To answer your question, the term “born again” actually had six meanings in Rabbinic Judaism:

1. Gentile converting to Judaism

2. Being crowned king

3. Bar mitzvah (Jewish confirmation at age 13)

4. Being married

5. Being ordained a rabbi

6. Becoming the head of a rabbinic academy

The six ways of being born again in Pharisaic Judaism all had physical connotations. What Jesus did was give it a spiritual connotation in reference to spiritual rebirth.

A Jewish View of John 3 | Chosen People Ministries

another ancient view of Jewish born again: though written later

Born Again Judaism – Parashat Tzav/Shabbat Hagadol 2012

While the term “born again” has become a popular cultural appellation for Jesus’ followers, Judaism often uses rebirth as a metaphor to describe the change of a person’s status, such as when an individual converts to Judaism. The Talmud describes a convert to Judaism as a newborn infant (b. Yeb 22a, 62a, 48b; y. Bik 3:3 vii). Rebirth also occurs on a man’s wedding day; when he takes a wife he becomes like a newborn child (y. Bik 3:3 vii). Jewish tradition teaches that when Israel offered sacrifices to God on Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets, or Jewish New Year; Lev. 23:24), God considered it as though He had created them as a new being (Lev. Rab. 29:12). God also told Moses that he would create him into a new being when he called Moses to speak as God’s representative (Ex. Rab. 3:15).

The king of Israel was also considered to experience new birth when he became the king. While Psalm 2 ultimately anticipates the coming of the Messiah, it also depicts the birth of the king as “God’s son” during the king’s inauguration (Ps. 2:7). The king functioned as God’s representative to Israel; therefore, his status changed at his inauguration and he experienced new birth.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You have to substantiate your claims. It's not my job to go fishing for your information. You have to present your substantiation for your claim here. I'm not doing your work.

If you are unable to click a link- that is your problem.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Provide proof.


You're not free to make claims without providing substantiation or to then put others to work to prove your claims for you.


You have to substantiate your claims. It's not my job to go fishing for your information. You have to present your substantiation for your claim here. I'm not doing your work.


1. Jesus was surprised he didn't know so it couldn't have been completely new.
2. Being "born of water" would have to be metaphorical (water isn't pregnant), so, yes, your reading would "suffer" from the same "deficiency".

Well it is not my reading- but a simple way people talked of natural birth.

What does it mean to be "born of water"?

 

[GracePeace]

From Ariel .org. I erred on one- it was not circumcisaion but bar mitvah
Born Again
Q: How does the Jewish phrase “born again” relate to Yeshua's new usage?
A: To answer your question, the term “born again” actually had six meanings in Rabbinic Judaism:

1. Gentile converting to Judaism

2. Being crowned king

3. Bar mitzvah (Jewish confirmation at age 13)

4. Being married

5. Being ordained a rabbi

6. Becoming the head of a rabbinic academy

The six ways of being born again in Pharisaic Judaism all had physical connotations. What Jesus did was give it a spiritual connotation in reference to spiritual rebirth.

A Jewish View of John 3 | Chosen People Ministries

another ancient view of Jewish born again: though written later

Born Again Judaism – Parashat Tzav/Shabbat Hagadol 2012

While the term “born again” has become a popular cultural appellation for Jesus’ followers, Judaism often uses rebirth as a metaphor to describe the change of a person’s status, such as when an individual converts to Judaism. The Talmud describes a convert to Judaism as a newborn infant (b. Yeb 22a, 62a, 48b; y. Bik 3:3 vii). Rebirth also occurs on a man’s wedding day; when he takes a wife he becomes like a newborn child (y. Bik 3:3 vii). Jewish tradition teaches that when Israel offered sacrifices to God on Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets, or Jewish New Year; Lev. 23:24), God considered it as though He had created them as a new being (Lev. Rab. 29:12). God also told Moses that he would create him into a new being when he called Moses to speak as God’s representative (Ex. Rab. 3:15).

The king of Israel was also considered to experience new birth when he became the king. While Psalm 2 ultimately anticipates the coming of the Messiah, it also depicts the birth of the king as “God’s son” during the king’s inauguration (Ps. 2:7). The king functioned as God’s representative to Israel; therefore, his status changed at his inauguration and he experienced new birth.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[GracePeace]

If you are unable to click a link- that is your problem.

Do not attack me as "unable" just because YOU refuse to do YOUR work.

 

[GracePeace]

Well it is not my reading- but a simple way people talked of natural birth.

What does it mean to be "born of water"?

Who says "born of water" was understood at the time and place as referring to "natural birth"?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do not attack me as "unable" just because YOU refuse to do YOUR work.

Well I gave you a link and you did not wish to click on it the first time! What else am I to assume when you do not want to click on it?

That would be like me serving you a plate of food and you weanting me to feed it to you.

 

[GracePeace]

Natural birth was called being born of water. This was a common way of saying it in Israel.

This was the consequential claim. Please substantiate this.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Who says "born of water" was understood at the time and place as referring to "natural birth"?

Well as I cannot copy and paste copyrighted material, I gave you the two works I found it in. both were/are born again jews. Both hold thd's and phd's Fruchtenbaum also hold masters in Hebrew and Greek and a BA in biblical archeology.

Eddersheim wrote in the late 1800's and Fruchtenbaum is current. I referenced the works I found them in, that is the best II cann do. I have lookedon line and cannot find many more. In Jewish sites there are bits and pieces of it, but googling born of water produces Christian sites that speak of water baptism.

 

[GracePeace]

Well I gave you a link and you did not wish to click on it the first time! What else am I to assume when you do not want to click on it?

That would be like me serving you a plate of food and you weanting me to feed it to you.

I bring my arguments and substantiation here, you also bring yours here. I'm not asking anyone to do something I'm not willing to do.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This was the consequential claim. Please substantiate this.

I did, if it is not to your satisfaction, then you are free to rebut with counter claims.

 

[GracePeace]

Well as I cannot copy and paste copyrighted material, I gave you the two works I found it in. both were/are born again jews. Both hold thd's and phd's Fruchtenbaum also hold masters in Hebrew and Greek and a BA in biblical archeology.

Eddersheim wrote in the late 1800's and Fruchtenbaum is current. I referenced the works I found them in, that is the best II cann do. I have lookedon line and cannot find many more. In Jewish sites there are bits and pieces of it, but googling born of water produces Christian sites that speak of water baptism.

You'd think you'd be able to share their citations.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I bring my arguments and substantiation here, you also bring yours here. I'm not asking anyone to do something I'm not willing to do.

I gave y0ou the best I could find, if it is not enough for you, feel free to reject it.

 

[GracePeace]

I did, if it is not to your satisfaction, then you are free to rebut with counter claims.

No you didn't. You said "such and such a book" but that doesn't prove ancient Israelites spoke or thought that way. Show me ancient Jewish citations.