John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[GracePeace]

None of these. What I deny is 'born of water' in the passage means 'born of the word'. If 'born of water' meant 'born of the word' then 'born of water' would be sufficient for one to see and enter into the kingdom of God. And it makes 'born of water and the Spirit' unnecessarily redundant.

When you are born of the Word (as Peter teaches we are "born of the Word"), you are born of the Spirit (as John teaches "born of... the Spirit")--there are not two different new births but one and yet we are taught we a born of the Word AND born of the Spirit (knowing the Two are distinct).

 

[Ferris Bueller]

When you are born of the Word (as Peter teaches we are "born of the Word"), you are born of the Spirit (as John teaches "born of... the Spirit")--there are not two different new births but one and yet we are taught we a born of the Word AND born of the Spirit (knowing the Two are distinct).

I knew what you were saying. It makes the passage meaningless and redundant.

 

[GracePeace]

I knew what you were saying. It makes the passage meaningless and redundant.

1. If "water" really does refer to "Word", which it could, how would it be "redundant" when these are two different things? LOL
2. If "water and Spirit" is just "the Spirit", like "Spirit and fire", would "Spirit and fire" not also be "meaningless and redundant"?
3. Still, of all the interpretations, the one that makes the least sense in the context is "water baptism that births natural sons".

 

[Ferris Bueller]

1. So, you agree we're born of the Word, and you agree we're born of the Spirit... and yet you wouldn't say these are two different "new births" but one and the same "new birth".

I agree, and in the context of being born again, yes, they are one and the same new birth.

You're not getting the problem with your interpretation.........

What Jesus said: "...unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. " John 3:5-6

What GracePeace says it means: "...unless he is born of the water/word and the Spirit. Water/word/Spirit is flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the water/word/Spirit." GracePeace 3:5-6

 

[Ferris Bueller]

3. Still, of all the interpretations, the one that makes the least sense in the context is "water baptism that births natural sons".

John's baptism for repentance is what births natural sons. Because John's baptism for repentance was repentance in regard to the law in preparation for the appearing of the Messiah. The person who repented according to Moses in preparation for the Messiah was no different than the legalist in Galatians who turned to the law. Both are children of Hagar and will not inherit the kingdom. Only the son who is born of the Spirit inherits the kingdom.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

2. If "water and Spirit" is just "the Spirit", like "Spirit and fire", would "Spirit and fire" not also be "meaningless and redundant"?

Negative (that means no). Fire is one of the attributes of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

God is a consuming fire, they were immersed in the Spirit of God the consuming fire--one and the same baptism.

Baptized in fire

to be immersed in fire

the fire shall never be quenched,

the tongues of fire were not eternal, and they were not baptized into tongues of fire

they were the result of the gift of the spirit, ie, the anointing

 

[GracePeace]

I agree, and in the context of being born again, yes, they are one and the same new birth.

You're not getting the problem with your interpretation.........

What Jesus said: "...unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. " John 3:5-6

What GracePeace says it means: "...unless he is born of the water/word and the Spirit. Water/word/Spirit is flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the water/word/Spirit." GracePeace 3:5-6

LOL You're laying a requirement on the text that doesn't exist.

Jesus tells Nicodemus he has to be born again.
Nicodemus thinks he has to get back inside his mother's womb.
Jesus corrects him : "born spiritually"
Jesus clarifies : "flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit".

 

[GracePeace]

John's baptism for repentance is what births natural sons. Because John's baptism for repentance was repentance in regard to the law in preparation for the appearing of the Messiah. The person who repented according to Moses in preparation for the Messiah was no different than the legalist in Galatians who turned to the law. Both are children of Hagar and will not inherit the kingdom. Only the son who is born of the Spirit inherits the kingdom.

What "births natural men" is... ipso facto... natural birth.
"Flesh gives birth to flesh."
"No, Nicodemus, you don't climb back into your mother's womb."
LOL

It's got nothing to do with Galatians 4, which is part of a denunciation of false a Gospel of going back "Under Law" so as to "work the works of the Law".

 

[Eternally Grateful]

LOL You're laying a requirement on the text that doesn't exist.

Jesus tells Nicodemus he has to be born again.
Nicodemus thinks he has to get back inside his mother's womb.
Jesus corrects him : "born spiritually"
Jesus clarifies : "flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit".

So simple

 

[GracePeace]

So simple

Of all the things in John's Gospel that are coded language, they want THIS to be code... my gosh, there're so many actual mysteries.

 

[GracePeace]

Baptized in fire

to be immersed in fire

the fire shall never be quenched,

the tongues of fire were not eternal, and they were not baptized into tongues of fire

they were the result of the gift of the spirit, ie, the anointing

They were baptized in Spirit and fire.
They didn't get blue unicorns over their heads.
They got fire.
Did the fire remain? Sure.
Just the miracle of seeing the fire isn't always present.
Remember Jesus says the 5 wise virgins have the lamps?
Remember it says "be continually filled with the Spirit"?
Meaning we can "run low"?
As far as "anointing", it stays with us, is the source of our understanding 1 John 2:27.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

What "births natural men" is... ipso facto... natural birth.
"Flesh gives birth to flesh."
"No, Nicodemus, you don't climb back into your mother's womb."
LOL

It's got nothing to do with Galatians 4, which is part of a denunciation of false a Gospel of going back "Under Law" so as to "work the works of the Law".

Do you think for a second that John's baptism for repentance was not repentance to the law? There is no gospel of Jesus Christ at this time, only the law and it's requirements.

 

[GracePeace]

Do you think for a second that John's baptism for repentance was not repentance to the law? There is no gospel of Jesus Christ at this time, only the law and it's requirements.

You can fly all the way over to Galatians for your interpretation, but it's really not the point.

Nicodemus thought he had to get back into his mother's womb to be "born again".
Jesus says "No, born spiritually."
The difference is between being born of the will of men, sexually, and being born of God.
John's baptism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

What births natural sons is... ipso facto... natural birth.

"...the son by the slave woman (the old covenant) was born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29

Flesh giving birth to flesh.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Do you think for a second that John's baptism for repentance was not repentance to the law?

Well?

 

[GracePeace]

"...the son by the slave woman (the old covenant) was born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29

Flesh giving birth to flesh.

Again, you're solving a non-existent problem : "not of flesh, nor the will man, but of God".

The Gentiles need to be born of the Spirit to enter the Kingdom, too, meaning they also are born of flesh, and yet they hadn't submitted to John's baptism--it's got nothing to do with that issue over there in Galatians.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Of all the things in John's Gospel that are coded language, they want THIS to be code... my gosh, there're so many actual mysteries.

I agree. I don't see anything coded about it at all....

"That which has been born of the flesh is flesh" John 3:5

"born according to the flesh" Galatians 4:29

 

[GracePeace]

Well?

It's not even relevant.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

nor the will man

John's call to repentance. Nothing more than a natural birth of man's doing.