ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[Cross Reference]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (ESV)

One interpretation has it as first being by water, physical birth, from the womb, followed by the second birth from above by the choosing of Christ Jesus or the other that has it being by water baptism that implies simultaneous regeneration? Which understanding are you compelled to believe as scriptural. Can you give your reasons?

 

[Cross Reference]

I notice 36 hits on this thread and no replies.

I started this thread after reviewing the R.C.Sproul video. His non-answer prompted me to ask what the OP is asking. I am being to wonder if anyone understands the seriousness of or knows enough to realize that what they have been given to believe for salvation is based upon one of those two 'understandings' __ one of which is Biblical while the other is nothing more than an ages-old opinion.

The question and answer is around the 70 min. marker on the video.

 

[chrysostom]

born means
to come out of

you come out of your mother's body
when you are born
you come out of your body
when you die

 

[Cross Reference]

born means
to come out of

you come out of your mother's body
when you are born
you come out of your body
when you die

I got the half of that __ gotta leave the other half to the mystics. .

 

[TFTn5280]

I was raised in the church of Christ where baptismal regeneration is not only taught but hammered into its members. I understand the ramifications of this question all too well. The water is a reference to physical birth from the mothers womb. Think about this: if baptismal regeneration is in view here then the act of receiving salvation is formulaic ~ a person must do one thing in exchange for another. Here's the question: If God is so stringent as to attach a formula to the act of being born again, then what happens to converts when that act is not followed in the right manner ~ Is it by sprinkling infants or immersing believers? Is a wrong manner of baptism really baptism at all? And let's say that we get the manner right but misunderstand its application. Let's say that we baptize believers by immersion according to formula but not for the express purpose of remitting sins, does that misapplication negate the manner in which it was applied? Do you see where I'm going with this? Quite quickly it becomes legalistic: It must be done the right way for the right reason or it is not effective. I just don't think the free gift is received that way, the costs are far too high. And how is this not a work anyway? Parse it anyway you want, I am doing something in order to receive salvation.

The water in this verse is in reference to physical birth and not baptismal regeneration.

T

 

[oatmeal]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (ESV)

One interpretation has it as first being by water, physical birth, from the womb, followed by the second birth from above by the choosing of Christ Jesus or the other that has it being by water baptism that implies simultaneous regeneration? Which understanding are you compelled to believe as scriptural. Can you give your reasons?

Did Jesus Christ do water baptisms? or was that John the Baptist that did that?

 

[oatmeal]

I was raised in the church of Christ where baptismal regeneration is not only taught but hammered into its members. I understand the ramifications of this question all too well. The water is a reference to physical birth from the mothers womb. Think about this: if baptismal regeneration is in view here then the act of receiving salvation is formulaic ~ a person must do one thing in exchange for another. Here's the question: If God is so stringent as to attach a formula to the act of being born again, then what happens to converts when that act is not followed in the right manner ~ Is it by sprinkling infants or immersing believers? Is a wrong manner of baptism really baptism at all? And let's say that we get the manner right but misunderstand its application. Let's say that we baptize believers by immersion according to formula but not for the express purpose of remitting sins, does that misapplication negate the manner in which it was applied? Do you see where I'm going with this? Quite quickly it becomes legalistic: It must be done the right way for the right reason or it is not effective. I just don't think the free gift is received that way, the costs are far too high. And how is this not a work anyway? Parse it anyway you want, I am doing something in order to receive salvation.

The water in this verse is in reference to physical birth and not baptismal regeneration.

T

Very well stated, thanks

 

[chrysostom]

I got the half of that __ gotta leave the other half to the mystics. .

what is your problem with the other half?

 

[Cross Reference]

what is your problem with the other half?

Other than I don't have an opinion, I have none.

 

[Nick M]

Born of your mother when the water breaks, and then born from grave as Ezekiel told. You are master of Israel and you know not these things?

 

[Cross Reference]

Born of your mother when the water breaks, and then born from grave as Ezekiel told. You are master of Israel and you know not these things?

Where is that mentioned/taught using those words?

 

[Sheila B]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (ESV)

One interpretation has it as first being by water, physical birth, from the womb,

I reject this interpretation of natural childbirth as being related to John 3:6 and Jesus' explanation of being born again.
Why? Because if this were the case, then every aborted fetus, every miscarriage would never enter heaven. I believe every conceived human organism that is flushed out by contraceptive devices, etc... ALL go to heaven.

followed by the second birth from above by the choosing of Christ Jesus or the other that has it being by water baptism that implies simultaneous regeneration? Which understanding are you compelled to believe as scriptural. Can you give your reasons?

water and spirit...
now baptism saves you...
BUT the baptism, to be valid, must be in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself directed before his ascension. Or at least that must be the intention of the one baptizing (in case they are not fully informed, etc.)

 

[Sheila B]

The water in this verse is in reference to physical birth and not baptismal regeneration.

T

:nono:

60 million aborted fetuses in USA alone, are all in heaven. All conceived human organisms have received an immortal soul and will live forever with their creator.

"Before you were conceived in the womb I knew you.!"

 

[Sheila B]

Born of your mother when the water breaks, [/I]

:nono:

 

[Sheila B]

Think about this: if baptismal regeneration is in view here then the act of receiving salvation is formulaic ~ a person must do one thing in exchange for another. Here's the question: If God is so stringent as to attach a formula to the act of being born again, then what happens to converts when that act is not followed in the right manner ~ Is it by sprinkling infants or immersing believers? Is a wrong manner of baptism really baptism at all? And let's say that we get the manner right but misunderstand its application. Let's say that we baptize believers by immersion according to formula but not for the express purpose of remitting sins, does that misapplication negate the manner in which it was applied? Do you see where I'm going with this? Quite quickly it becomes legalistic: It must be done the right way for the right reason or it is not effective.T

The objective truth is this:
Jesus said You must be born of water and spirit.
Jesus said: Baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Subjective application of this TRUTH will be decided by God Who will judge each man according to his/her knowledge.

Simply and sincerely intending to do what God wants and according to ones given understanding can only be assessed by God. He is not legalistic!!!

But His Kingdom has order and harmony and a Divine Design!

 

[Squeaky]

He is talking to people that have already been born from a mother. He isn't talking to unborn people. You must be born again. Water baptism, Spirit Holy Spirit.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
(NKJ)

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(NKJ)

 

[Cross Reference]

He is talking to people that have already been born from a mother. He isn't talking to unborn people. You must be born again. Water baptism, Spirit Holy Spirit.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
(NKJ)

But Jesus didn't mention anything about being baptized in water to Nicodemus when chiding him for not remembering "that little detail". So if baptizing for salvation could have been known by reading the OT, doncha think Nicodemus, a teacher of the Jews, would not have needed to ask the question?? "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" John 3:10 (KJV)

[Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(NKJ)

You have water baptism as being a part of a very legalistic manner in which people can only be saved. What do you think happened when Jesus said to the thief on the cross,"This day you shall be with Me in Paradise". How could that be without water baptism?

Note: Acts 2:38 was NOT for salvation in the sense it has been given us to understand.. These Jews were righteous Jews who had now learned from Peter that Jesus had made peace with God in their behalf. Peter was in effect saying, 'change your thinking about your own righteousness in believing it to be sufficient for your salvation'. This is not to be confused with the derogatory accusation of being "self-righteousness" but having an honest appraisal of themselves according to the law not unlike how Paul thought of himself when persecuting the church, that he could say, ". . . as to righteousness under the law, blameless". However, whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ."Philippians 3:7 (ESV)

 

[Cross Reference]

I was raised in the church of Christ where baptismal regeneration is not only taught but hammered into its members. I understand the ramifications of this question all too well. The water is a reference to physical birth from the mothers womb. Think about this: if baptismal regeneration is in view here then the act of receiving salvation is formulaic ~ a person must do one thing in exchange for another. Here's the question: If God is so stringent as to attach a formula to the act of being born again, then what happens to converts when that act is not followed in the right manner ~ Is it by sprinkling infants or immersing believers? Is a wrong manner of baptism really baptism at all? And let's say that we get the manner right but misunderstand its application. Let's say that we baptize believers by immersion according to formula but not for the express purpose of remitting sins, does that misapplication negate the manner in which it was applied? Do you see where I'm going with this? Quite quickly it becomes legalistic: It must be done the right way for the right reason or it is not effective. I just don't think the free gift is received that way, the costs are far too high. And how is this not a work anyway? Parse it anyway you want, I am doing something in order to receive salvation.

The water in this verse is in reference to physical birth and not baptismal regeneration.

T

Beautiful explanation! Thanks TFTn5280 . . and Hello to you.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I go with the former view because of the context and the rest of John 3:16.

I dont reject water baptism which i see as an act of Obedience, and na outward sign of inward act.

But we are saved by grace through faith for works, and outward sign of something Gods has already done within.

 

[TFTn5280]

:nono:

60 million aborted fetuses in USA alone, are all in heaven. All conceived human organisms have received an immortal soul and will live forever with their creator.

"Before you were conceived in the womb I knew you.!"

I hear what you are saying and I can sympathize with it. However, I do not think it applies to this verse. Jesus was not referencing aborted fetuses here or miscarried fetuses either. He was not setting forth a catch-all formula for salvation. Rather he was referencing Nicodemus' comment about going back again to his mother's womb in order to be born a second time. Aborted fetus's are not born and neither are miscarried fetuses in the context of the discussion. Of course aborted fetus's et al are saved and in heaven. And this not by way of some technicality that gets them in with a wink from God, but by the same way that you and I are saved: by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone.