The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[HopeofGlory]

Jesus told Nic that he must be born again but Nic did not understand.

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? John 3:4 (KJV)

Nic asked how can a man be 'born' not born again a second time. Nic brings up the subject of the first 'born' of a woman and it is Jesus that explains the contrast of the two borns.

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. John 3:5 (KJV)

Except a man be born of water (womb) and Spirit (born) he can not enter heaven.Let me say it another way, Jesus said "born" of water and that is what he ment "born" of water not "born again" or "reborn" of water and it is understood that "born" applies to "of the Spirit" not "born again" or "reborn" of the Spirit. These are two "borns" not one born again. You can argue that until the day you die but the verse will remain the same.

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

Jesus interpreted the meaning of verse 5 and further explains the contrast of the two borns, the first being of the flesh and the second of the Spirit.

The contrast of flesh and Spirit is something that Paul fully explained:

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Gal. 5:17
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal. 5:18

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:8 (KJV)

Jesus explains it again for all those who are a little slow to understand "every one that is born of the Spirit" not born of the Spirit and water is born again.

 

[JustAChristian]

Hmmmmm....

Hmmmmm....

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
Jesus told Nic that he must be born again but Nic did not understand.

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? John 3:4 (KJV)

Nic asked how can a man be 'born' not born again a second time. Nic brings up the subject of the first 'born' of a woman and it is Jesus that explains the contrast of the two borns.

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. John 3:5 (KJV)

Except a man be born of water (womb) and Spirit (born) he can not enter heaven.Let me say it another way, Jesus said "born" of water and that is what he ment "born" of water not "born again" or "reborn" of water and it is understood that "born" applies to "of the Spirit" not "born again" or "reborn" of the Spirit. These are two "borns" not one born again. You can argue that until the day you die but the verse will remain the same.

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

Jesus interpreted the meaning of verse 5 and further explains the contrast of the two borns, the first being of the flesh and the second of the Spirit.

The contrast of flesh and Spirit is something that Paul fully explained:

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Gal. 5:17
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal. 5:18

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:8 (KJV)

Jesus explains it again for all those who are a little slow to understand "every one that is born of the Spirit" not born of the Spirit and water is born again.

In John 3:5 Jesus instructed Nicodemus that he must be born again. The elements of that rebirth is water and Spirit. The two elements of the new birth are supported by a coordinating conjunction "and." The conjunction joins the two factors to perform the end result. This says that what ever is required of one is required of the other. They have equal responsibility. The new birth will not happen unless each is utilized. The manner in which the two are utilized is that which hampers many from being reborn. There are those who attempt to associate the "water" with the human birth. That which Jesus speaks about has nothing whatsoever to do with a physical birth. First of all, the newborn does not come from water but from the womb. Water has already been expressed before the child is born. Some will stumble on this saying, The event is simultaneous. That is not always the truth. Many babies go through what is commonly called a "dry birth." This is when the amniotic fluid has been expressed some time before the physical delivery. These babies then need to be delivered by Caesarean delivery. If the water of John 3:5 relates to the physical birth then babies born of Caesarean delivery are not delivered from the water and thus can not be reborn. This will seem extreme by some, but is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.

JustAChristian :angel:

 

[HopeofGlory]

Re: Hmmmmm....

Re: Hmmmmm....

In John 3:5 Jesus instructed Nicodemus that he must be born again. The elements of that rebirth is water and Spirit. The two elements of the new birth are supported by a coordinating conjunction "and." The conjunction joins the two factors to perform the end result. This says that what ever is required of one is required of the other. They have equal responsibility. The new birth will not happen unless each is utilized.

It is obvious that you have to be born the first time inorder to be born the second or born again. The first is required or the second is not possible.

The manner in which the two are utilized is that which hampers many from being reborn.

That's right and the works of the flesh are not required for the second brith.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63
But there are some of you that believe not... John 6:64

There are those who attempt to associate the "water" with the human birth. That which Jesus speaks about has nothing whatsoever to do with a physical birth.

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

First of all, the newborn does not come from water but from the womb.

Do you believe that there is no water in the womb?

Water has already been expressed before the child is born. Some will stumble on this saying, The event is simultaneous. That is not always the truth. Many babies go through what is commonly called a "dry birth." This is when the amniotic fluid has been expressed some time before the physical delivery. These babies then need to be delivered by Caesarean delivery.

Dry delivery yes but it is not possible for a natural birth to take place without the water of the womb.


If the water of John 3:5 relates to the physical birth then babies born of Caesarean delivery are not delivered from the water and thus can not be reborn. This will seem extreme by some, but is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.

All babies at some point are delievered from the water of the womb during the brith process. There is no logic in your conclusion.

JustAChristian :angel:

 

[Kevin]

freelight

Hi kevin,............I was basing my understanding of being 'born again' as also meaning being
'born from above' - I got this out of the greek interlinear word for word translation from Westcott and Hort - I liked that translation - so......we need to first see if the english words 'born again' are the best words possible when translating the greek.

Well, yes, I think the english words "born again" are the best words possible when translated from the greek, for two main reasons:

• The Greek supports it
• Context supports it

According to Strongs, the Greek for born is:

G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

And according to Strongs, the Greek for again is:

G509
ἄνωθεν
anōthen
an'-o-then
From G507; from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew: - from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top.

Born again is easily support by the Greek. Born anew and born from above are also acceptable. Whichever way you look at it though, it is indicating a birth that has not happened yet upon simply being born.

Context easily support born again, because look at what Nicodemus asked Jesus:

John 3:4
4) Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'

Now why would Nicodemus ask this question unless the subject is about being born "again"? One would not talk about going into his mothers womb a second time unless the topic was being born "again" (a second time - as underlined in the verse).

So then Jesus clarifies and acknowledges that man indeed must as necessary be born naturally

Why would Christ stress that a man MUST be born from the womb when we have no control over that whatsoever? Why would he explain that to people who have obviously already been born naturally?

Jesus is using what Nicodemus knew and was familiar with - and that was natural birth!

So Jesus was using what Nicodumus knew and was familiar with, eh? The scriptures don't agree with your assesment, for Nicodemus went on to ask:

Joh 3:9-10
9) Nicodemus answered and said to him, `How are these things able to happen?'
10) Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel--and these things thou dost not know!

It's obvious that Nicodemus isn't "familiar" with what Chist is talking about here. Now if Christ was speaking of a natural birth, which every human being would know about, why wouldn't Nicodemus ask how these things are possible?

It's quite obvious that Christ was speaking of something other than a natural birth, because Nicodemus didn't understand what Christ was talking about. So unless you are ready to defend that natural birth was a mystery to Nicodemus, it's quite clear that something else is being spoken of.

To summarize - Jesus teaches that being born again OF THE SPIRIT(or being born from above) is necessary to see and enter into Gods kingdom.

Agreed, and Christ said that it invovles being born of water and the spirit. Again, this isn't speaking of a natural birth, or Nicodemus wouldn't have asked Christ ask how these things are able to happen.

You cant impose baptism into this dialogue or use it as a primary support for baptism as such a move while appearing to be valid...is dismissed after a more careful study.

I'm sorry, but careful study easily shows that Christ is NOT referring to natural birth.

And yes I can impose baptism because I have sciptural evidence to show this. You didn't even try to show me how Romans 6, which is speaking of baptism, how it does not show the process of being born again.

Further proof is in Acts 2 when Peter, whom Christ founded His church upon, converted sinners. What did he tell them to do? He commanded them to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins.

Here is what Christ is referring to when He contrasts the flesh with the Spirit:

Galatians 5:19-24
19) Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
20) idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
21) envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22) But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23) meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24) But those belonging to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.

People born of the flesh will practice the works of the flesh, and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

People born of the Spirit will practice the the fruits of the Spirit and will inherit the kingdom of God.

Further proof that "flesh" is not referring to natural birth can be seen in the 24th verse of Galtians - it says that those in Christ have crucified the flesh. If "flesh" in John 3 is meant as natural birth, then how can you crucify your natural birth? Not possible.

Oh.... and just how do we crucify the flesh?

Romans 6:6
6) knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.

Look at that... we are right back at Romans 6, which is speaking about baptism. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[rene]

"Hi rene,.................I have already tried to explain to you that Jesus is not speaking about baptism in this dialogue - I wont press the obvious anymore....as its pointless if one wont see. So.....like I said before.....superimposing your interpretation on the text is futile."

My reply: Actually was not totally mine. About what the "birth" was being spoken of, Nicodemus' misunderstanding - was from the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia"

Telling a person that they have to be 'born again' - and think that such is ref. to their physical birth - when they are already born - when one just reads the next few verses - shows me that you need to read the next few verses yourself.

 

[freelight]

try again..........

try again..........

rene wrote:

Telling a person that they have to be 'born again' - and think that such is ref. to their physical birth - when they are already born - when one just reads the next few verses - shows me that you need to read the next few verses yourself.


)================ You have not been following my commentaries have you. :doh:

The above does not apply to me as I never said one must be born again physically. Hello? Your not getting it. Being born again is OF THE SPIRIT. THE ISSUE HERE IS GENERATION/BIRTH not baptism....and your misunderstanding of my statements.

At the expense of sounding like a parrot.......I have shared my view that the being 'BORN OF WATER' is referring to natural birth (of the flesh). Being 'BORN AGAIN' is OF THE SPIRIT, not the flesh. THERE ARE TWO BIRTHS - FLESHLY(natural) and SPIRITUAL (supernatural)....one it earthly the other heavenly.

You began this thread by quoting this text in support of baptism...and such has been refuted. Also my contention that Jesus is emphasizing the necessity of SPIRITUAL BIRTH and this is the second birth(being born again/born from above) seems to go unnoticed by you.

shalom,


paul

 

[rene]

"You have not been following my commentaries have you. "

My reply: No, going what is written within the bible instead.

" The above does not apply to me as I never said one must be born again physically. Hello? Your not getting it. Being born again is OF THE SPIRIT. THE ISSUE HERE IS GENERATION/BIRTH not baptism....and your misunderstanding of my statements."

My reply: Incorrect, wrong. You made assertions about the comments that Nicodemus and Jesus said and about their supposed meanings - which are not supported when one looks up the words in question. All that you do have is "your commentaries" So much for your claims that you have refuted nothing with.

 

[Jefferson]

All:

Please continue your discussion of baptism here.

For those of us who have hijacked this thread and turned it into a debate over when the Body of Christ began, I moved that discussion over here: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6736

 

[freelight]

wonders......

wonders......

Hi rene,

I am amazed at how some wont see or try to understand anothers exegesis and continue to misinterpret it. For the sake of your own enlightenment...and the viewers - I have simply stated that your using the text of John 3 to support or validate baptism is not supported in the context - as I have already shown that vs. 5 is explained by vs. 6....showing that 'born of water' is referring to 'that which is born of the flesh'. Using this verse to support baptism is something superimposed into the text. 'Born' does not mean 'batpize' - can you show in the 'original language' where born means baptism? We await. You need to be true to the context, not your presupposition which is not supported by the text. There are plenty of other verses on baptism....but this one is not it. I call to account some peoples misrepresentation of the text.

Again.......Jesus is showing the importance of spiritual generation - being BORN OF THE SPIRIT. This is clear - as he states twice that one must be born again TO SEE AND ENTER into the kingdom. This spiritual birth affords spiritual vision and access into the Realm of God. Natural birth (being born of water grants vision and access into the natural physical world) - spiritual birth grants one vision and access into the Spiritual world.

"THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH, THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT."

This is what Jesus is teaching - not water baptism/immersion. He is referring to being born/birth. These births are explained by him in the context as a fleshly birth and a spiritual birth - the latter is the second birth required for access into the Kingdom of God.

Getting the essential of Jesus dialogue with Nico is our primary concern - being born of the SPIRIT is the issue. My logic is true to the immediate context of the their dialogue.

Nicodmeus is perplexed at how these things can be...because he does not understand the 'spiritual birth process' - he does not know how one can be born of the Spirit - Jesus even says that this process is a mystery....although one can discern the ways of the Spirit by it manifestations/effects - see vs. 8.

I expanded more on this latter point in my response to Kevin...which seems to have gotten lost in cyber space I'll respond soon when I have time.

Jesus concludes and stands firm that the SPIRIT gives life - all of Johns writings referring to being 'born' of God refer to being born of the Spirit - NOT BAPTISM. I have already shared this with you with all the verses you quoted from Johns writings. Your head is pretty thick my dear....all because of your undue worship on the concept of baptism you hold....which has tried to manipulate the text of John 3. tsk tsk tsk.

Its time to stick with what Jesus is actually meaning in the text - ok? For your own sake.

It also helps to try to understand where your fellowman is coming from - to discern his/her logic - this will help the discussions. I feel some here are not following how/why I interpret the text as I do - I feel I am being quite clear.

Shalom,


paul

 

[JustAChristian]

The Water Of Baptism In The New Birth...

The Water Of Baptism In The New Birth...

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

HopeOfGlory,

No, it is your conclusion that is wrong. The new birth of John 3:4-5 involves both water and the Spirit. Note carefully that it is one birth involving two elements - water and the Spirit. It is not two birth (born of water and born of the spirit), but one birth (born of water and the Spirit). If we compare this with Paul’s description in Titus 3:5, we see a washing of regeneration (water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Spirit). It can be no doubt that we have here a reference to baptism. What external evidence can we look to for assistance in understanding the water of John 3:3-6? Here is but a few of many...

“There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, thatgennethenai ek hudaton (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism, gennethenai ed pneumatos (born of Spirit) to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped. “ Alford (Greek Testament).

“By water, here, is evidently signified baptism.” Albert Barnes.

“Baptism by water, into the Christian faith, was necessary to every Jew and Gentile that entered into the kingdom of the Messiah.” Adam Clarke

“There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism...I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gives it another interpretation, which he confessed to be new.” - William Wall (History of Infant Baptism)

The new birth occurs when on is baptized, for in that simple act of faith they are born not only of the water out of which they arise (Rom. 6:3-5), but also born of the spirit (regenerated) but the working of God at that moment (cf. Col. 2:12-13). The new birth involves several elements (water, Spirit, Word of God0, with all coming together when one responds to the gospel in baptism - (e.g. Acts 2:37,38). While there is evidence that one is born of water as they rise from the watery grave of baptism, the evidence of their being born of the Spirit comes later. The evidence of the new birth is seen by the effect of the Spirit. We should expect that what the Spirit produces is spirit (i.e., spiritual - John 3:5). Like the wind (the same Greek word as Spirit0, we do not see the Spirit himself but the effect that He produces – has one been truly born of the Spirit (i.e., born again)? With time there should be clear evidence that a change has occurred (e.g., 1 John 3:14).

In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus reveals much about being born again. He discusses the necessity of the new birth (one cannot be a Christian unless he or she is “born again.” He discusses the nature of the new birth (a birth involving both water and the Spirit, i.e., baptism). He discussed the evidence of the new birth (observable by its effects, i.e,. The fruit of the Spirit). He discusses the basis of the new birth (Christ’s sacrifice, God’s love, man’s faith). And He discusses the rejection of the new birth (shy many refuse to submit to it). You need to analyze you spiritual position. External evidence is overwhelming that the water of John 3:3-6 involves the water of baptism and not the natural birth. Think of the teaching of being born of water and the Spirit as a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Think of the teaching that being born through the Word of God as a responding to the gospel message of salvation (Rom. 1:16). Remember, it was Jesus who said “...he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

JustAChristian :angel:

 

[freelight]

true to the immediate context.......

true to the immediate context.......

Hello Kevin and all,

Here are a few comments on your last post (the original was lost in cyber space).


You wrote:

Why would Christ stress that a man MUST be born from the womb when we have no control over that whatsoever? Why would he explain that to people who have obviously already been born naturally?


)=============If you follow the ORDER of the coversation... Jesus is not 'explaining' that one needs to be born naturally (thats a given)....but he knows that Nico understands natural birth process as ecvidenced in his question in vs. 4.
FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE CONVERSATION.
Immediately after Nico asks Jesus 'how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?
Jesus then responds, 'Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water AND THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Jesus acknowledges the that one must be born naturally first (born of water)......yet he carries this understanding of birth to the spiritual level by saying 'AND THE SPIRIT' - showing Nico that that this spiritual birth is that which is also needed for a man to enter into the kingdom. Jesus is speaking to Nico in a personal flow relative to Nicos understanding - however he still does not understand the issue of spiritual generation.
Jesus then explains that, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This explains and verifies that being 'born of water' here is ones natural fleshly birth....and that being 'born of the Spirit' is ones spiritual birth into the kingdom of God. It is essential/necessary for one to be born again OF THE SPIRIT. This is what Jesus is teaching in this dialogue with Nico. Then Jesus emphasizes to Nico again..."You must be born again" - the second birth of the Spirit is vital and necessary!


You wrote:

It's obvious that Nicodemus isn't "familiar" with what Chist is talking about here. Now if Christ was speaking of a natural birth, which every human being would know about, why wouldn't Nicodemus ask how these things are possible?


)============= Jesus used Nicos knowledge of natural birth to further explain to him the necessity of spiritual birth - being born again. Nicodemus is questioning 'How can these things be' - such showing that he didnt understand the dynamic or spiritual birth process - he was only familiar with the natural birth process.
Jesus sees that he wonders if a man can enter his mothers womb again and be born - Jesus then answers....'unless one is born of water and the Spirit...he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Nico wonders how a man can be born again - Jesus clarifies this by telling him there are two births that are necessary - natural and spiritual.


You wrote:

It's quite obvious that Christ was speaking of something other than a natural birth, because Nicodemus didn't understand what Christ was talking about. So unless you are ready to defend that natural birth was a mystery to Nicodemus, it's quite clear that something else is being spoken of.



)=============== Nico did not understand being born again (of the Spirit) - this is shown by his question , 'how can these things be'? He did know the reality of physical birth which is why Jesus conveyed to him that one must be born of water AND Spirit. It is this being born of the Spirit that Nico does not comprehend....hence the question.

You wrote:

I'm sorry, but careful study easily shows that Christ is NOT referring to natural birth.


)=============careful study OF the Immediate con-text and order of dialogue shows that being born of water refers to natural birth (being born of the flesh).


Kevin:

And yes I can impose baptism because I have sciptural evidence to show this. You didn't even try to show me how Romans 6, which is speaking of baptism, how it does not show the process of being born again.


)================ You can impose baptism....by avoiding the immediate obvious context and jumping to letters of Paul......but that doesnt help the cause of being true to what Jesus is teaching here to Nico. Rom. 6 is Pauls teaching not Jesus. We are dealing with Jesus words to Nico in John 3. Since John 3 is not about baptism but 'birth'....bringing up Rom. 6 as being some kind of parallel in reference to baptism has no bearing on what Jesus is teaching.


Kevin:

Further proof is in Acts 2 when Peter, whom Christ founded His church upon, converted sinners. What did he tell them to do? He commanded them to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins.


)=============== this does not prove that Jesus was speaking of baptism in his conversation to Nico. In you zeal to defend water baptism(as if I was teaching against it)....you are using other portions of 'scripture' to force an outside meaning on a portion of scripture which is explained in its own context.

Kevin:

Here is what Christ is referring to when He contrasts the flesh with the Spirit:

Galatians 5:19-24
19) Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
20) idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
21) envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22) But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23) meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24) But those belonging to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.

People born of the flesh will practice the works of the flesh, and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

People born of the Spirit will practice the the fruits of the Spirit and will inherit the kingdom of God.


)================ Once again.....this is not what Jesus is referring to - It is evident in the order of their conversation.....that Jesus quotes, 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' - explaining what being born of water and the Spirit means - vs. 5, 6. It is important to read this dialogue slowly and IN ORDER - in immediate context. The forcing of the outside doctrine of Paul is uncalled for in discovering what Jesus is teaching here.



Kevin:

Further proof that "flesh" is not referring to natural birth can be seen in the 24th verse of Galtians - it says that those in Christ have crucified the flesh. If "flesh" in John 3 is meant as natural birth, then how can you crucify your natural birth? Not possible.


)========== Kevin, you keep interjecting the teaching of Paul when such is not acceptable here as we are reviewing Jesus teaching to Nico - we are addressing what JESUS is teaching - not PAUL. Lets stay with the immediate verses in question - the context. Your above logic is not applicable to my true position.

For another review of points -


1) Jesus is teaching being born again OF THE SPIRIT as essential to entrance to the Kingdom. This birth is the second birth - the first one is natural, fleshly.
2) This being 'born again' is a kind of birth, not baptism(immersion) in this particular dialogue.

It is only the presupposition and imposition of your belief in the importance of water baptism...that forces you to impose and interpolate unlawful meanings into this text.

PRIMARY TRUTH - Jesus says, "You must be born again" - this BIRTH is a spiritual generation.

I will repeat....in an attemept for some here to give the doctrine/practice of water baptism a certain preeminence...they have sought to take a verse and turn it into some kind of proof-text - however Jesus phrase 'born of water' is explained as 'that which is born of flesh'(natural birth), - see order and flow of dialogue.

There are plenty of verses to support water baptism....this is not one of them. (my view of course based on what knowledge/understanding I have so far).

In general,.......do I believe that water baptism is absolutely required/necessary for salvation? Not necessarily.......even though such is instructed to be done in a time relative to ones public announcement of faith in Christ. I do believe water baptism is indeed in sync with Christs commands and the apostles - the essential requirement being the baptism of the Spirit - Christ immersing us in the Holy Spirit and fire. Of course the physical act of water baptism all by itself......saves no one. That which avails is that which takes place on the inner levels of being - spiritually.



paul

 

[rene]

" I will repeat....in an attemept for some here to give the doctrine/practice of water baptism a certain preeminence...they have sought to take a verse and turn it into some kind of proof-text - however Jesus phrase 'born of water' is explained as 'that which is born of flesh'(natural birth), - see order and flow of dialogue."

My reply: What has been attempted to get others to understand and give pre-eminence to is that the words of Jesus are what is to be followed. His examples, His teaching.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

When you support something that goes against the very words of Jesus - how can any even begin to suggest that it is biblical? A principle that He addressed in the talk with Nicodemus and other places before He returned to heaven. A practice that Jesus practiced, instructed to be followed - somehow is no longer important? No longer needed? No longer required? With no verse that states such?

 

[Freak]

Rene--stop boasting about H2O.

 

[freelight]

water fixations......

water fixations......

Amen Freak :chuckle:

What some here do not seem to understand and 'see' is that Jesus was not speaking about batpism(any form) in his dialogue with Nicodemeus - amazing how many times I took them thru this already....yet they still CLING to their presuppostions and impositions. This dialogue is very important as Jesus says that unless one is born again one cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God - what Jesus is teaching here is SPIRITUAL GENERATION - being BORN OF THE SPIRIT. This is the crux of the matter. The Essential requirment. The Primary necessity.

Water baptism does not save a soul - water has no inherent power to save anything. It is regeneration by the Spirit that avails. Only the Spirit gives LIFE. Its time to stick to the essentials of what is true.

shalom!


paul

 

[rene]

What really is sad is that there are some that make the claim to be Christian - in Christ - and yet discount His very words because they don't go along with what they want.

No matter how you dance around it - Jesus instructed it - that should settle if it should be done or not.

Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus appears to His disciples and instructs them to baptize and teach all nations.

The disciples/apostles followed these instructions, shared them - and told others to follow their example.

None is called a Christian - in Christ - that is not baptized - not one time within the bible. When there were people found that believed and were not baptized - they were baptized.

Some want to suggest 'just water' - even tho that is totally opposite of what Jesus and the apostles taught, what is found within the bible.

Me - I follow Jesus and His words.

 

[Kevin]

freelight,

If you follow the ORDER of the coversation... Jesus is not 'explaining' that one needs to be born naturally (thats a given)....but he knows that Nico understands natural birth process as ecvidenced in his question in vs. 4.

Well of course Christ knows that Nico understands natural birth. Following the context, we see that in verse 4 that Nico does indeed understand that Christ is speaking about being reborn, which is why he asked the question of how can a person enter his mother's womb a sencond time.

Christ then in answer to how to be reborn, resonds by saying that you need to be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kningdom of heaven.

There is no plausible reason, in the immediate context, that Christ would use the illustration of natural birth. The subject at hand is how to be reborn, which means being being born AFTER already being born. So to answer that question, He said that you need to be born of water and the Spirit - and that in answer on how to be reborn - being born AFTER the natural birth- so there would be no reason whatsoever to be speaking about natural birth when the answer is relevent a birth that takes place AFTER one is already been born.

Also, once again, I say that it's, to me, silly that Christ would be speaking of rebirth here. <Someone goes up to Christ and says> "How do you make it to heaven? Christ answers - "Well, first you have to be born (speaking to somebody has already been born), and then you must be born of the Spirit."

That's like saying "How do you get a tan?" and the first thing I say is "Well, first you have to have skin...". No reason to mention that.

Jesus is speaking to Nico in a personal flow relative to Nicos understanding - however he still does not understand the issue of spiritual generation.

That is your assumption that Nico only does not understand being born of the Spirit. If that were the case, I'm sure Nico would have specified that - "Ok, I understand the natural birth, but what do you mean about being born of the Spirit?" There is no hint of that at all in there.

What we do have is a verse revealing that Nico does not undertsand "these things". According to "immediate context", what are these things? Well, Christ spoke of being born of water and the spirit and went on to say what is flesh is flesh and what is Spirit is Spirit. Nico was completely confused about everything Christ had just spoken about, or I seriously doubt he would have used the term "these things" - that is plural things.

Nicodemus is questioning 'How can these things be' - such showing that he didnt understand the dynamic or spiritual birth process - he was only familiar with the natural birth process.

As said before, "these things" are plural, not singular... so Nico is confused about everything Christ was speaking about.

Jesus sees that he wonders if a man can enter his mothers womb again and be born - Jesus then answers....'unless one is born of water and the Spirit...he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Nico wonders how a man can be born again - Jesus clarifies this by telling him there are two births that are necessary - natural and spiritual.

Well, you almost got it right. Jesus is not clarifying that TWO births need to take place, no, rather Christ is clarifying the two requirements of being reborn (which means that person has already been born) - water and the Spirit.

Nico did not understand being born again (of the Spirit) - this is shown by his question , 'how can these things be'? He did know the reality of physical birth which is why Jesus conveyed to him that one must be born of water AND Spirit. It is this being born of the Spirit that Nico does not comprehend....hence the question.

Again, as said before, "these things" are plural, not singular... so Nico is confused about everything Christ was speaking about. There's not the slightest indication that Nico udnerstood anything that Christ was talking about. And I know that Nico understood natual birth, yet after that Christ explain to him, he didn't understand "these things".

careful study OF the Immediate con-text and order of dialogue shows that being born of water refers to natural birth (being born of the flesh).

Nope. See above.

You can impose baptism....by avoiding the immediate obvious context and jumping to letters of Paul......but that doesnt help the cause of being true to what Jesus is teaching here to Nico. Rom. 6 is Pauls teaching not Jesus. We are dealing with Jesus words to Nico in John 3. Since John 3 is not about baptism but 'birth'....bringing up Rom. 6 as being some kind of parallel in reference to baptism has no bearing on what Jesus is teaching.[/qtuoe]

You would see that John 3 is indeed speaking of baptism if you would just read Romans 6 and try to explain to me how in baptism that we "die with Christ" and are reborn "walking in the NEWNESS of life." You have yet to show me how Romans 6 is not speaking of being born again.

Once again.....this is not what Jesus is referring to - It is evident in the order of their conversation.....that Jesus quotes, 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' - explaining what being born of water and the Spirit means - vs. 5, 6. It is important to read this dialogue slowly and IN ORDER - in immediate context. The forcing of the outside doctrine of Paul is uncalled for in discovering what Jesus is teaching here.

Oh, so is it just complete just coinciental that Christ shows there is a diference between the Spirit and the flesh and so does Paul? Coincidence?

And by the way, there are many examples in the Bible that show an apsotle, or even Christ, teaching and then quoting scriptures from another source. That's all I'm trying to here. Show me how I'm wrong in using the Galatian writings which show the contrast between the Spirit and the flesh. Both Christ and Paul show the contrast, but Paul's explanation of just that has nothing to do with Christ's differation of the Spirit and the flesh?

Kevin, you keep interjecting the teaching of Paul when such is not acceptable here as we are reviewing Jesus teaching to Nico - we are addressing what JESUS is teaching - not PAUL. Lets stay with the immediate verses in question - the context. Your above logic is not applicable to my true position.

:doh: Well, I could use that same logic and direct your attention to Peter at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. He was addressing the Jews yet he quoted from the Book of Psalms. Using your logic, whould you say "We are talking about Peter, not the book of Psalms."?

There are many, many paralells in the Bible that are scriptural and accurate. If my paralells are incorrect and do not show what I claim, show me how... don't just say "we are addressing what JESUS is teaching - not PAUL." That's very weak.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how Romans 6 does not speak of rebirth. Are there two rebirths? You don't even attempt to address it. :down:

1) Jesus is teaching being born again OF THE SPIRIT as essential to entrance to the Kingdom.

Agreed, and one who is not baptized, who is he not born of the Spirit? After all, the words of the gospel are inspired, and when the right people believe, they are baptized for the remission of sins, just as in Acts 2:38. These people are born of the Spirit.

To people who are born of the flesh, the gospel is foolishness.

This birth is the second birth - the first one is natural, fleshly.

Jesus is answering ONE question here - how to be reborn. He lists 2 requirements - water and the Spirit.

It is you who takes water and Spirit and separates them into different births, which doesn't make sense considering the fact that Chist was answering how to be born again.... why would He mention a birth that has already happend when that's NOT the question at hand?

2) This being 'born again' is a kind of birth, not baptism(immersion) in this particular dialogue.

Romans 6 is speaking of the rebirth process, and that speaking on baptism. Again, are there now two ways to be reborn?

[qoute]There are plenty of verses to support water baptism....this is not one of them. (my view of course based on what knowledge/understanding I have so far).

I disagree, and there are plenty of scholars that would also. Can you refute JustAChristian's reference which claims:

"There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism...I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gives it another interpretation, which he confessed to be new.” - William Wall (History of Infant Baptism)

 

[Kevin]

Let us know when you have an argument...

Let us know when you have an argument...

Freak,

Rene--stop boasting about H2O.

She's not boasting about anything. She just has the senes to know that when Jesus commands us to do something for the forgiveness of sins, that it is to be obeyed.

You supposedly lead people to Jesus but make a mockery of His commandments by saying they aren't necessary for salvation! Yeah.... Here's the guy that can save you, but when He tells you what to do for salvation, you don't really have to do it.

That's what you're saying. Sad.

 

[Freak]

Re: Let us know when you have an argument...

Re: Let us know when you have an argument...

Originally posted by Kevin
Freak,



She's not boasting about anything.

All she talks about is water. I'm tired of it. Jesus is the perfecter of our faith not water.

She just has the senes to know that when Jesus commands us to do something for the forgiveness of sins, that it is to be obeyed.

That's a lie from the pit. I'm tired of you, too. You pervert the gospel.

You supposedly lead people to Jesus but make a mockery of His commandments by saying they aren't necessary for salvation!

Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life...." He didn't tell us water is the way. Go on & believe those lies and end up in eternal hell.

Yeah.... Here's the guy that can save you, but when He tells you what to do for salvation, you don't really have to do it.

God's Word tells us:

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Faith in Jesus Christ...no mention of water again in Acts 20.

 

[Kevin]

Like I said, let me know when you have an arguement...

Like I said, let me know when you have an arguement...

Freak,

All she talks about is water. I'm tired of it. Jesus is the perfecter of our faith not water.

What good is Jesus going to do anybody if they don't listen to what He commanded for salvation?!

That's a lie from the pit. I'm tired of you, too. You pervert the gospel.

• You have no proof of a lie
• If you're tired of me you're welcome to stop reading my posts and responding
• And no, I don't pervert the gospel. I preach what Christ commanded... you don't.

Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life...." He didn't tell us water is the way. Go on & believe those lies and end up in eternal hell.

Again, I ask, what good is Jesus going to do anybody if they don't listen to what He commanded for salvation?!

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Yeah, so? What good is faith if you don't obey His instructions for salvation? Is that your idea of faith? To say that you have faith in Him but don't do what He commands for salvation shows a LACK of faith in Him. The faith that saves is the faith that obeys.

Faith in Jesus Christ...no mention of water again in Acts 20.

Hmmm... well, there's no mention of grace in that verse either. Does that mean we are no longer saved by grace because it's not mentioned in that verse? You'll have to do much better than that.

 

[rene]

"Again, I ask, what good is Jesus going to do anybody if they don't listen to what He commanded for salvation?!"

My reply: This has been what I have wondered as well. How can one make the claim to be in Christ - a Christian - a follower - if they discount and don't follow what He taught?