John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[Ronald Nolette]

The water of John's baptism for repentance is not enough to see and enter into the kingdom of God. You must also have Jesus' baptism in the Spirit. Repentance, though necessary, is not enough to enter into the kingdom of God....

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21​

S o now you are saying that the water Jesus spoke of in J9ohn 3 was Johns baptism which now you say is a metaphor for repentance? So now we have a double metaphor?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

So now defend that being born from above is a two step process that we must be born of the word and the spirit!

I'm saying the gospel message that saves is repentance and faith in God....

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21​

John's baptism for repentance is not enough. You must also be born again, by being baptized in the Spirit by Jesus. John came to lead people in repentance by baptizing them in water. Jesus came to baptize them in the Holy Spirit.

11I (John) baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Matthew 3:11​

 

[Ferris Bueller]

S o now you are saying that the water Jesus spoke of in J9ohn 3 was Johns baptism which now you say is a metaphor for repentance? So now we have a double metaphor?

Technically, it's called a metonymy, not a metaphor. But anyway, yes. At this time of Jesus appearance John has been leading the way for him by baptizing them in water for repentance. But that is not enough. Though a Jew, like Nicodemus, probably thinks so. Jesus is saying, "that's good, but that's not enough. Now I'm here to baptize you in the Holy Spirit, without which you will not see or enter into the kingdom of God."

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm saying the gospel message that saves is repentance and faith in God....

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21​

John's baptism for repentance is not enough. You must also be born again by being baptized in the Spirit by Jesus. John came to lead people in repentance. Jesus came to baptize them in the Holy Spirit.

11I (John) baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Matthew 3:11​

I don't think you know what repentance means here.

And JOhns baptism was for Jews only! Remember Jesus came to die for sins yes, but He also came to offer the prophesied kingdom to Israel.

that is why John as the forerunner and the disciples until Matt. 12 went only through Israel preaching the gospel of the ki9ngdom (repent for the kingdom of God is at hand)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Technically, it's called a metonymy, not a metaphor. But anyway, yes. At this time of Jesus appearance John has been leading the way for him by baptizing them in water for repentance. But that is not enough. Though a Jew, like Nicodemus, probably thinks so. Jesus is saying, "that's good, but that's not enough. Now I'm here to baptize you in the Holy Spirit, without which you will not see or enter into the kingdom of God."

That is what I have been saying!

Jesus was telling Nicodemus that it wasn't enough to just simply being born Jewish to receive and see the kingdom, you also have to be born from above. Nicodemus fully understood the being born of water, He had no clue what Jesus meant by being born from above- which is why he asked if he had to enter the womb a second time!

Stop putting your 21st century gentile mind and imposing it on a 1st century Jewish conversation. Keep things in their proper context and you won't have to contort the word of God so much.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I don't think you know what repentance means here.

And JOhns baptism was for Jews only! Remember Jesus came to die for sins yes, but He also came to offer the prophesied kingdom to Israel.

that is why John as the forerunner and the disciples until Matt. 12 went only through Israel preaching the gospel of the ki9ngdom (repent for the kingdom of God is at hand)

The message did not change. Paul took the same message of repentance, faith in God, and the kingdom of God to the gentiles.

21testifying to Jews and Greeks alike about repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.e22And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23I only know that in town after town the Holy Spirit warns me that chains and afflictions await me. 24But I consider my life of no value to me, if only I may finish my course and complete the ministry I have received from the Lord Jesus—the ministry of testifying to the good news of God’s grace.25Now I know that none of you among whom I have preached the kingdom will see my face again. Acts 20:21-25​

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Jesus was telling Nicodemus that it wasn't enough to just simply being born Jewish to receive and see the kingdom

I understand that part. But the message of repentance is being preached at this time.

...you also have to be born from above. Nicodemus fully understood the being born of water, He had no clue what Jesus meant by being born from above- which is why he asked if he had to enter the womb a second time!

Stop putting your 21st century gentile mind and imposing it on a 1st century Jewish conversation. Keep things in their proper context and you won't have to contort the word of God so much.

That's what I'm doing! I'm looking at it from Nicodemus' point of view. At this time, John is preaching water baptism for repentance. Jesus is saying, "that's not enough. John himself told you there is one coming after him who will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. That has to happen for you to see and enter into the kingdom of God, though you, a Jew, would expect repentance by itself to be sufficient to do that".

 

[BreadOfLife]

What do you find silly about it? Your insults are indicative of someone who lacks confidence in his own beliefs.

It's a silly argument to claim that you are NOT subject to any human authority. Besides the obvious examples of government and local authorities - you also are subject to the authority and teachings of your pastor - your sect.

And, by the way - there was no "insult" in this statement - just an observation.
No need to get so defensive.

Sola Scriptura is nothing more that a pair of words indicating a complex set of ideas centered around the concept of epistemology: how do we come to know what we know? Most people seem to understand, even if tacitly, that there are two main sources of knowledge: rational and empirical. Theists would add one more: divine revelation. Paul the Apostle lists 5 sources of divine knowledge, which the Spirit of God has granted to Christ to give to his church. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and preachers.

The foundation of our knowledge of God's will are the Apostles and prophets, and their oracles and messages are found in the holy scriptures. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, not only posits that the apostles and prophets are the ONLY reliable source of divine revelation, but that their writings are accessible to anyone who can read.

The RCC, on the other hand, has placed itself between the scriptures and the people, teaching the people that the scriptures are too difficult to understand, and that one must come to the RCC for the authorized interpretation.

Your view about protestants is based on the errors of sinners, who like the RCC wanted to be the sole source of divine revelation. "New boss same as the old boss." I'll grant you that. Nonetheless, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is not the cause or source of empire building. Those who truly practice Sola Scriptura are not bound to any religious authority whatsoever. Not every protestant who ostensibly believes in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually practices it. Many protestants affirm denominational doctrines, just as many Catholics affirm Catholic doctrines. But those who practice Sola Scriptura are independent thinkers who study the Bible by themselves or in groups or under the guidance of Bible teachers but always taking responsibility for their own beliefs. An independent Bible student would never say, "my teacher says this", or "my denomination says this." Those who practice Sola Scriptura do business with what they learn from Jesus and his apostles and own the truth for themselves because they have done the hard work required to gain such knowledge. And ultimately those whom God is saving has poured out his spirit into their hearts, so that some people gain divine knowledge in a direct way.

Your statements above in RED are even sillier than your last post.

First of all - the Catholic Church has NEVER claimed to be the "sole source" of divine revelation. As a matter of fact - the Church doesn't claim to be the source of divine revelation - PERIOD. The source is ALWAYS the Holy Spirit, who reveals His will through His Church.

All of your claptrap about the wonderful virtues of Sola Scriptura have resulted in mass confusion. There are literally tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different and comteting doctrines - yet ALL believe that they were "led" to this chaos by the Holy Spirit. The fact that you don't see a problem with this speaks VOLUMES about the confusion that is Protestantism.

God is NOT the Author of Confusion - but the Author of Order.

Finally - you state that those who practice Sola Scriptura "do business" with what they learn from Jesus and his Apostles.
"doing business" with the Apostles means NOT relying on only what is written (Sola Scriptura) - but according to Scripture itself, includes ORAL TRADITION:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

So, according to Paul - Apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and preachers. INCLUDES Scripture AND Tradition.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The message did not change. Paul took the same message of repentance, faith in God, and the kingdom of God to the gentiles.

21testifying to Jews and Greeks alike about repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.e22And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23I only know that in town after town the Holy Spirit warns me that chains and afflictions await me. 24But I consider my life of no value to me, if only I may finish my course and complete the ministry I have received from the Lord Jesus—the ministry of testifying to the good news of God’s grace.25Now I know that none of you among whom I have preached the kingdom will see my face again. Acts 20:21-25​

So now you are sayhing that gentiles needed to be baptized with JOhns baptism seeing as you allege the message didn't change?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I understand that part. But the message of repentance is being preached at this time.


That's what I'm doing! I'm looking at it from Nicodemus' point of view. At this time, John is preaching water baptism for repentance. Jesus is saying, "that's not enough. John himself told you there is one coming after him who will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. That has to happen for you to see and enter into the kingdom of God, though you, a Jew, would expect repentance by itself to be sufficient to do that".

I wish you were looking at it from Nicodemus point of view! Have you bothered to study what Pharasaic Judaism was like at teh time of Christ? Have you read books on the culture of 1st Century Judaism and the common beliefs they held?

 

[GracePeace]

I don't know how to understand what you say. So, please forgive me if I don't respond much anymore.

Sounds good.

My point is this. The fact that Jesus used the term "living water" to represent the effect of the spirit, or that Paul used "baptismal water" as a metaphor for sanctification, does not mean that either one of these analogies is applicable in John 3. If someone should use water as a metaphor in one context, this doesn't mean water always represents that idea wherever it is used. This is not how the Bible communicates ideas.

Well, the, very same book tells you "water... spoke of the Spirit" but yeah just throw that in the trash so you can insert any meaning you please. Sounds good man. Enjoy.

 

[GracePeace]

Water is a metonymy for repentance. Water is the word Jesus used to describe repentance because turning back to God through John's baptism for repentance is what people are doing at this time in Israel. Jesus is telling Nicodemus that John's baptism is not enough to see and enter into the kingdom of God. That's flesh giving birth to flesh. You must also be born again through Jesus' baptism, the baptism of the Spirit. That's Spirit giving birth to spirit.

The Spirit is not only closely associated with water in John's Gospel but also compared to wind and fire. Elementals. Also literally "water... spoke of the Spirit" but yeah just throw that in the trash doesn't matter what the author thought you have better ideas.

 

[GracePeace]

The content needn't but it does! Paul expands on this thought in Romans.

Paul expands on John's unwritten thought (John wasn't written yet)... in Romans... this should be "interesting".

Romans 2:28-29
King James Version

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

No, as it turns out, he doesn't.

Pharasaic Judaism taught as I showed that Jews by simple birth were members of the kingdom. Jesus and Paul taught that both a natural birth and spiritual birth are what is required.

1. That's all well and good but you didn't show "natural birth" was referred to as "born of water" which was the consequential claim (the rest is interesting but is not really consequential).
2. No, someone who is already "naturally born" is already "naturally born" so they have already fulfilled that requirement and needn't be advised as to it as if they lacked it.

John 3:3-7
King James Version

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.

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?

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.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Vse. 3&4 Jesus brings in the new concept needed to be born again. Once again Nicodemus was born again the four out of the possible 6 ways He could be in Pharasaic Judaism. bar-mitzvah, marriage, being rabbi, becoming a rabbi of rabbis. The term bortn again was not unkn own in Jesus day. It was spoken often in rabbinic circles.

Rabbi J. Cohen Halachic questions Born again Jews (jEWISH PRESS 10/5/90
Rabbi Judah in Gerimn 2.6
b.. Yebamoth 62a
b. Sanhedrin 58a;b
Yebamoth 23a
D Daube NT and Rabbinic Judaism (Hendrickson Publishers 1956 pp 112-113
E Schurer History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh T.&T Clark 1979) 2:420 et. al.

As I showed this was a natural conversation not shrouded in metaphors or allegories.

Still nothing showing "natural birth" was normally referred to as "born of water".

As I linked to the Midrash Rabba, the mindset of the day was that it was enough to be born Jewish to be a member of the kingdom.

the reason why water here is not baptism (immersion) is that Nicodemus had u8ndergone many ritual baptisms (immersions).
the reason why water here is not a metaphor for the word is that Nicodemus was well versed in the word.

1. I never asserted Jews didn't think they would enter just because they were Jewish (actually "all Israel will be saved" was their mindset for which reason Paul had to tell them "not all Israel is 'Israel'"), so this is irrelevant.
2. I never said water referred to water baptism so this is irrelevant.
3. The reason why your argument that "water is not the Word because Nicodemus was already well versed in the Word" doesn't work has already been explained to you.
You may respond to that when you wish to progress in the conversation.

Jesus introduced a brand new concept to Israel, to be born from above! This was unknown to Israel of the day! A natural birth (water/flesh) was not enough to see the kingdom, but a spiritual birth was also required. that is why Jesus said one must be born of water AND the spirit. The new birth does not have two parts to accomplish it. we are not born of baptism or the word AND the Spirit- we are born of the spirit alone

People come up with convoluted arguments to defend being born of the word when it is far more simpler as I have shown and demonstrated.

Citing John "water... spoke of the Spirit" isn't a "convoluted argument", it's called "substantive" and it renders your view all but indefensible which is why you have nothing to say but kick and scream and call it names.

Still no substantiation for the claim "born of water" was normative for "naturally born".

 

[GracePeace]

Water and spirit birth are tow separate thinhgs in John 3. Now prove that drinking of one spirit means being born of allegorical water!

You can't drink of the Spirit except by faith in the Word. Drinking the Word of the Spirit is drinking the Spirit. As Christ told the woman at the well. Then later "whoever believes from his belly will flow rivers of living water this He spoke concerning the Spirit". You're just denying the obvious--it's not working out for you.

 

[GracePeace]

I gave you the references I have, if that is not enough for you, then we are at an impasse.

The references you had never substantiated your claim "natural birth was normally referred to as born of water--that's how they said it in ancient Israel, you just don't understand with your Western mind".
Since you admit you're "out of ammo" though I'll take it you're admitting you have no proof. Thanks.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The Spirit is not only closely associated with water in John's Gospel but also compared to wind and fire. Elementals. Also literally "water... spoke of the Spirit"...

Then the water birth should be sufficient in Jesus' analogy, but it is not.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I wish you were looking at it from Nicodemus point of view! Have you bothered to study what Pharasaic Judaism was like at teh time of Christ? Have you read books on the culture of 1st Century Judaism and the common beliefs they held?

No. I've always been a firm believer that the Bible interprets itself. Bits of history here and there is fine, though. Galatians 4 is what provided the insight to interpret John 3 for me.....

"Flesh gives birth to flesh..." John 3:6 — "...the son born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29

"...Spirit gives birth to spirit." John 3:6 — "...the son born by the power of the Spirit..." Galatians 4:29​

 

[Ferris Bueller]

So now you are sayhing that gentiles needed to be baptized with JOhns baptism seeing as you allege the message didn't change?

No, with the appearance of Jesus and the revelation of the gospel of faith, being water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the all encompassing baptism commanded by Jesus. That baptism is in contrast to John's baptism which was only a baptism for repentance in preparation for the baptism of Jesus and had no promise of the Holy Spirit—the agent of the new birth—connected to it.

 

[GracePeace]

Then the water birth should be sufficient in Jesus' analogy, but it is not.

What do you mean "the" water birth?
What are you importing to the text?

 

[GracePeace]

No. I've always been a firm believer that the Bible interprets itself. Bits of history here and there is fine, though. Galatians 4 is what provided the insight to interpret John 3 for me.....

"Flesh gives birth to flesh..." John 3:6 — "...the son born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29

"...Spirit gives birth to spirit." John 3:6 — "...the son born by the power of the Spirit..." Galatians 4:29​

The problem with your analysis is that the principle "flesh gives birth to flesh" extends to Gentiles as well--they, too, are only flesh, and need to be born again in order to enter the Kingdom--and, again, if "John's water baptism of repentance" was the way "fleshly sons of Abraham" were "birthed", then the unbelieving Jews (Galatians 4 is about them) would not be "fleshly sons of Abraham" since they don't accept John whatsoever.