Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Born of water" has been generally misunderstood. Many wrongly believe it means baptismal regeneration. Others wrongly believe that it is a reference to amniotic fluid. Few understand that it is a metaphor for the Word of God, which is "the seed" on the New Birth.
When Jesus spoke of being born of water, He was alluding to what was revealed in Ezekiel 36:25: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Now what kind of water would God Himself sprinkle on sinners? Obviously it would not be H2O since it would cleanse from filthiness (sins) and idols. The answer is found in Ephesians 5:25,26: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word...
According to this passage it is the application of the Word of God that cleanses the soul (by convicting and convincing). Thus it applies to the Gospel -- also the Word of God -- under the power of the Holy Spirit. and that is exactly what Peter and James tell us:
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
This corresponds to the truth that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. And it is only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who are born again (contrary to Calvinistic nonsense about people being regenerated BEFORE they believe and are saved).
James confirms the words of Peter thus: Of his own will begat he [gave birth to] us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:19)
To sum up, when Jesus said that the New Birth is by the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Word of God, He was speaking about spiritual realities and not physical substances.
Was that not obvious? And are not your arguments specious? Who said anything about two new births?we are saved through one new birth not two!
Many, many times I have explained that my view is NOT that water and Spirit are the same but refer to the Word and the Spirit. I use the materials provided me by the author. Please do not miss that I think "water" is "Word".Yes, we both seem to agree that Jesus' use of "water" in John 7 is an analogy. "Rivers of living water" refers to the indwelling of the Spirit. We would both agree, I think, that water and spirit here in John 7 are not two things, but one thing. The first represents the second. Rivers of water represent the indwelling of the Spirit.
Yes, to say "born of flesh" and "born of spirit" refer to the two births is correct--flesh is a nature and spirit is a nature.But here in John 3, Jesus is drawing a contrast between being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit." Clearly, flesh is different than spirit. Being born of flesh is substantially different than being born of spirit. And his emphasis is thrown almost entirely on being "born of spirit." (See John 3:6 and John 3:8)
Word is water.But verse 3:5 presents us with an interpretive challenge. Let's suppose that John intends the reader to make a connection between John 3:5 and John 7:38. In this case, Jesus might have said, "unless one is born of water, that is, born of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if that is what Jesus meant, I'm okay with that. I have no problem with that.
On the other hand, it's possible that Jesus had two OT passages in mind, both of which speak about the outpouring of the Spirit: Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezekiel 37:9-10. It just so happens that both Greek and Hebrew use the same word for "spirit" as they do for "wind". So let's consider that Jesus might have actually said, "unless one is born of water and wind, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Isaiah is talking about the rebirth of a nation and in that context the outpouring of the Spirit coincides with rain falling on parched earth. Ezekiel is also talking about the rebirth of the nation, wherein the Lord commands the wind and the dry bones form into bodies and the bodies are indwelt by the Spirit. It's possible, that Jesus was speaking about the rebirth of the nation: born of water and born of wind both referencing OT passages that speak about the outpouring of the Spirit. In this case, both wind and water represent the Spirit.
This interpretation is quite compelling and I am willing to give up my own interpretation in favor of that one, if that is what Jesus meant to say.
Sorry, I meant that I didn't think I even got direct responses.Okay. I'm sorry that my responses weren't coherent.
My view only causes Jesus to err if we do not defer to the material the author provides--if we defer to the terms and definitions provided it becomes clear "water" means "Word", and then you remember that the Bible does elsewhere teach we are "born again of incorruptible seed" (the Word). Both the Word and Spirit are God and John teaches we are "born not of the will of flesh but of God".Yes, my understanding is that Jesus is speaking about two births: being "born of flesh" and being "born of spirit". And his purpose is to compare and contrast the two. But I could be wrong. If I understand your objection correctly, (correct me if I am wrong) you take issue with my interpretation because I am making a category mistake. I am willing to consider your objection. You hear me saying, "unless one is born of water (a substance) and Spirit (a sentient Being) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And if I was saying that, then I would agree with you. This is clearly a category mistake and I would be wrong.
What I was trying to say is this, "unless one is born of water (a source of life) and spirit (another source of life) one cannot enter the kingdom of God." If I am right, Jesus is using the term "water" as a metonym, representing natural birth. Elsewhere the Bible indicates this with the phrase "born of woman." Job 14:1, Matthew 11:11 for instance.
(But I am warming up to your idea.)
But I thought your idea suffered from a category error also, which is why I was not convinced. As we noted earlier, Jesus' has employed an analogy in John chapter 7 between water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance.) So the sentence "unless a man is born of water (a substance) and spirit (not a substance) he cannot enter the kingdom of God" fails on the grounds that it forces Jesus to make a category error.
Now consider Jesus may have meant "wind" (a substance) instead of spirit (not a substance). Perhaps he meant to say, "unless one is born of water (a reference to Isaiah 44) and wind (a reference to Ezekiel 37) he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This interpretation doesn't suffer from a category error and if fits closer to John 4 and John 7.
What do you think?
Go ahead and respond when you get a chance please.I wish I could respond to this because I don't want you to think that I am ignoring your points. I'm not. But this post is long and I need to return to my job.
Thanks so very much for talking this through with me. I'm slowly coming your direction.
Precisely my view."Born of water" has been generally misunderstood. Many wrongly believe it means baptismal regeneration. Others wrongly believe that it is a reference to amniotic fluid. Few understand that it is a metaphor for the Word of God, which is "the seed" on the New Birth.
When Jesus spoke of being born of water, He was alluding to what was revealed in Ezekiel 36:25: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Now what kind of water would God Himself sprinkle on sinners? Obviously it would not be H2O since it would cleanse from filthiness (sins) and idols. The answer is found in Ephesians 5:25,26: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word...
According to this passage it is the application of the Word of God that cleanses the soul (by convicting and convincing). Thus it applies to the Gospel -- also the Word of God -- under the power of the Holy Spirit. and that is exactly what Peter and James tell us:
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
This corresponds to the truth that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. And it is only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who are born again (contrary to Calvinistic nonsense about people being regenerated BEFORE they believe and are saved).
James confirms the words of Peter thus: Of his own will begat he [gave birth to] us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:19)
To sum up, when Jesus said that the New Birth is by the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Word of God, He was speaking about spiritual realities and not physical substances.
...
Water isn't pregnant. We're not born of it. Water isn't a being. I believe it is likely that "water" refers to "the Word"--"the Words I speak are Spirit" (yet we know "the Word" is distinct from "the Spirit"--they're tightly bound together though). "The Spirit is the Truth", yet, they are two different things... "I am the life" says "The Word" (yet the Spirit is the life--"the body is dead without the spirit").
Jesus is laying out the requirement for entering the Kingdom, so He's only discussing the new birth with "water and Spirit".No being "born again" is being born of the Word. Jesus clearly describes the water birth and the spirit birth in the very next verse!
John 3:5-6
King James Version
5 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.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The "kai" (and) tells us that Jesus is speaking of two births. we are saved through one new birth not two!
Verse 6 tells us that water birth is natural birth. We are conceived and grow in water and birthed o ut of water. That is why many times when women start labor their "water brakes".
We also get that old and true euphemism: "Born once(water/flesh/natural) die twice(physically /spiritually) born twice (natural and spiritual) die once (physical.)
Jesus is a far better grammatician than how we try to interpret His Words. He would never mix literal and metaphorical in the same sentence in a conversation like this. That would be horrendous grammar and form.
Until now I'd only heard of "air brakes".... "water brakes"
Which is why 'water' is referring to fleshly repentance, and 'spirit' is referring to faith in God. Repentance alone births our favorite whipping boy, the 'legalist'. He can not and will not inherit the kingdom. But faith in God births a spiritual man, the one who inherits the kingdom of his Father, even though he is born second, defying all natural expectation that the son born first is the one who inherits the blessing.Jesus is a far better grammatician than how we try to interpret His Words. He would never mix literal and metaphorical in the same sentence in a conversation like this. That would be horrendous grammar and form.
No, you also missed that the author tells us "rivers of living water" refers to the effect of receiving "the Spirit" in John 7. We speak words of life after we receive the Spirit. We are born of God--by means of the Word spoken by the power of the Spirit.Another proposed explanation is that the “water” refers to the word of God.
Proponents of this interpretation use 1 Peter 1:23 for support: “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.” Notice how Peter associates the second birth with the “word of God.”
Protestants further support this claim with Ephesians 5:25-26, where Paul speaks of Christ cleansing the Church “by the washing of water with the word.” They then couple this with John 15:3, where Jesus says, “You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you.”
When you take into consideration that the second birth elsewhere in Scripture is associated with the word of God, and that the word of God is that which washes us clean, then it seems plausible for a Protestant to conclude that the water in the born again discourse refers to the word of God and not the waters of baptism.
The problem here is that the conclusion, “The water in the born again discourse doesn’t refer to baptism,” does not follow from the premise, “We are born anew by the word of God.” Philosophers have a term for this type of argument: non sequitur, which is Latin for “it does not follow.”
To be born again by the word of God is not mutually exclusive from being born anew through the waters of baptism. It’s possible that one can be born again by both, no matter how you interpret the phrase word of God.
For example, the word of God is, first, a person: Jesus. John describes Jesus as the “Word of God” in both John 1:1-3 and Revelation 19:13. But being born anew by Jesus doesn’t preclude the waters of baptism as also being a cause of our new birth. In fact, Paul tells us that it is through baptism that we are incorporated into Jesus and are able to drink of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). It’s not either Jesus or the waters of baptism; it’s both-and.
The word of God that Peter speaks of in 1 Peter 1:23 is the “good news preached” (1 Pet. 1:25)—the oral preaching that Paul calls the “word of God” in 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Must we conclude that our second birth is made actual by apostolic preaching rather the waters of baptism? (Or Jesus, for that matter.) Isn’t Peter the one who commands those listening on the day of Pentecost to “repent and be baptized” in order that they may receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)?
Even if we take the word of God as referring to the Bible, as most Protestants readily do, it doesn’t undermine water baptism as a cause of our new birth, since the form of water baptism is straight from the Bible: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Here too, our new birth is made actual by both the “word of God” and the waters of baptism.
It’s true that more work needs to be done to fully support the Catholic interpretation of the born again teaching. But at least we can see that attempts to reinterpret “born of water” as not referring to the waters of baptism are unconvincing. John 3:3-5 remains strong biblical evidence for spiritual rebirth by baptism.
Defending Rebirth by Water
"My little children, for whom I am again in pangs of labor until Christ be formed in you again." Galatians 4:19.No, you also missed that the author tells us "rivers of living water" refers to the effect of receiving "the Spirit" in John 7. We speak words of life after we receive the Spirit. We are born of God--by means of the Word spoken by the power of the Spirit.
BTW, is "baptismal rebirth" a dogma? I've already disproven "Mary is New Eve" which is the foundation of the dogma of "Mary's Immaculate Conception". This would be another.@Illuminator
"My little children, for whom I am again in pangs of labor until Christ be formed in you again." Galatians 4:19.
He is speaking the Word by the Spirit so that Christ will be in them again.
This arguing to bring them back under the persuasion from God is "giving birth again".
Guess what ISN'T "giving birth again". "Baptism".
The mere fact Jesus did not mention baptism at all when he told him how to receive the new birth of eternal life, just further proves this pointTo automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If that sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.
Water is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, divine life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)
"Born of water" has been generally misunderstood. Many wrongly believe it means baptismal regeneration. Others wrongly believe that it is a reference to amniotic fluid. Few understand that it is a metaphor for the Word of God, which is "the seed" on the New Birth.
...
Not water baptism itself, but the repentance that water baptism represents. John's baptism, the baptism for repentance, births a natural man. Jesus' baptism by the Spirit births a spiritual man.If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism
John's baptism was a baptism for repentance and is flesh giving birth to flesh. It births a son of Abraham "born according to the flesh"—Galatians 4:29. But Jesus' baptism is the Spirit giving birth to spirit and results in a son of Abraham "born by the power of the Spirit"—Galatians 4:29. The son born by the power of the Spirit inherits the kingdom, not the son born as a result of the flesh—Galatians 4:30. That's why you must be born of water AND the Spirit to see the kingdom of God. Jesus is telling Nicodemus that John's baptism, though necessary, is not enough to see and enter into the kingdom of God.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)_/¯
He spoke of natural, birth. "born of water and THEN born of Spirit...? Flesh/Spirit...I see nothing about baptism.