John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[Ferris Bueller]

Not in the slightest. You are obsessed with being "special" for having "discovered" a new doctrine. It is not godly.

Special? All I did was read the Bible for myself, lol. Anyone can do that. But they don't. Instead they rely on preprogrammed doctrinal packages delivered through their local pastor.

 

[GracePeace]

Special? All I did was read the Bible for myself, lol. Anyone can do that. But they don't. Instead they rely on preprogrammed doctrinal packages delivered through their local pastor.

Yeah, good for you, and you're wrong and you don't want to accept it in spite of the illogicity of it.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You're arguing against it now. LOL You're trying to say the ECFs thought "water" in "water and Spirit" of John 3 referred to John's baptism not New Testament baptism whereby they said people were "born again".

I think you're getting confused, lol.

 

[GracePeace]

Special? All I did was read the Bible for myself, lol. Anyone can do that. But they don't. Instead they rely on preprogrammed doctrinal packages delivered through their local pastor.

As I said before, it's complete nonsense, and there's nothing really to talk about concerning it other than waste my time reiterating the context of the conversation from John's Gospel.

 

[GracePeace]

I think you're getting confused, lol.

No, that must be yourself

Okay, good. You've confirmed that the early church understood John 3 to be talking about John's baptism.

You're already tripped up over Scripture now you're tripped up over your own misunderstandings of Scripture.
Stop. Just stop.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

they interpret "water" in "water and Spirit" as meaning "baptism in the Name of the Father the Son and the Spirit"

Yes, I think that's true. The baptism before and without the Spirit is......wait for it........John's baptism! See how that works? Do you remember me showing you how Paul pointed out the difference between John's baptism for repentance and the baptism for the receiving of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

No, that must be yourself

You're already tripped up over Scripture now you're tripped up over your own misunderstandings of Scripture.
Stop. Just stop.

You've confused yourself in your effort to not want to see what I'm saying.

 

[GracePeace]

You've confused yourself in your effort to not want to see what I'm saying.

You have nothing to say.
You want to have something to say.

Anyway... Jesus talks with Nicodemus about Nicodemus's misunderstanding about going back into his mother's womb. Sorry you can't accept plain Scripture because you want to be a praiseworthy "innovator".

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Sorry you can't accept plain Scripture because you want to be a praiseworthy "innovator".

You know, maybe I ought to change my screen name to 'Innovator'. Ed Rappaport, Innovator! I like it.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Jesus talks with Nicodemus about Nicodemus's misunderstanding about going back into his mother's womb.

I did not know that part was in dispute. I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that Jesus is correcting Nicodemus' misunderstanding about being born again.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The part we are in disagreement about is the water that births a natural, fleshly man who won't see and enter into the kingdom of God. You say it's the word of God. Well, we can see how much sense that makes......none.

 

[GracePeace]

The part we are in disagreement about is the water that births a natural, fleshly man who won't see and enter into the kingdom of God. You say it's the word of God. Well, we can see how much sense that makes......none.

It's irreducibly complex : Nicodemus is still thinking of natural birth (out of a woman's womb), and Jesus corrects him : "No, spiritual birth."
At no point is the issue of "baptism" raised.
"Flesh births flesh" is a woman's womb giving birth to a child.

There's nothing left to say.

If you insist on adding to that, what's there in the text, that's your problem, not mine--and I'm done discussing your interpolations. I can't make the truth on the matter any simpler or clearer.

 

[Illuminator]

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.

Agreed.
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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

Baptized (to be placed or immersed into) fire

not to have fire immersed in them.

again, a simple concept,

When something is poured on or into you, it is called anointing, like the OT priest was anointed when the oil was poured on his head, of course this is after he was washed (baptized) in the river jordan

 

[CadyandZoe]

It's a silly argument to claim that you are NOT subject to any human authority.

The fact that we are subject to human authority is understood and granted, though the American Experiment originally limited government authority by setting up a congress of freemen, who served in congress for the very short time of two years.

Nonetheless, I didn't argue against human authority at all. Did I? I don't think I did. Your meager attempt at equivocation isn't helpful to the conversation, which is focused on "belief" authority. There are many kinds of authority in this world, but there is only one authority, granted by God the Father, who has the authority to dictate what to believe about God and his will for mankind: Jesus Christ.

The RCC is not Jesus Christ and neither does it speak for him.

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.

Now who is being silly? Suppose there is a stream in the desert and everyone must come to that stream to get a drink. Suppose also that an armed gang guards the stream such that anyone wishing to drink, must go through the gang to get to the water? The RCC is that gang, keeping the Bible away from everyone but a few.

All of your claptrap about the wonderful virtues of Sola Scriptura have resulted in mass confusion.

I disagree. First of all, the fact that people disagree over the truth doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. Second, the fact that a so-called authorized interpretation of the scriptures exists, doesn't guarantee such authority has the correct interpretation. Finally, your argument isn't against Protestantism as such. Your argument is against human nature. Factionalism is par for the course among human beings.

The fact that you don't include the RCC among the human race speaks volumes about the evil of Catholic Dogma.

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.

You don't seem to understand what what Paul means by "traditions." He is NOT talking about an oral tradition, which stands along side the scriptures, offering additional information. He is talking about traditions that he, himself taught them, either in person or by letter. What are these "traditions?" What exactly is in view here?

For an answer to this, we read the next chapter wherein Paul indicates some of the traditions he taught them.

2Thessalonians 3:6-9
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.

Here in this passage we see how Paul uses the term "traditions". In Paul's view, the core gospel implicates a particular way of life, which logically follows from the core gospel itself. Many have noted that Paul's epistles begin with theological content and the core gospel, followed by ways of behaving and walking that are worthy of the gospel. One does not need to venture outside the scriptures to find mention of these traditions. In Paul's mind, the idea that one should not eat the bread of another man without paying for it, follows logically from the core gospel.

Paul is NOT talking about a set of doctrines that appear outside the scriptures that also hold authority over believers.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Sounds good.


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.

Okay, I get it. You don't have a sound argument so you think I will be impressed by sarcasm.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Agreed.
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

Need to go back to the OT. When Moses Consecrated the priest. they were washed in the Jordan river (baptized) then after the sacrifice. They were anointed with the Holy Oil. (even Arron went through this ceremony as High Priest. Only he had a few differences.

Jesus here is fulfilling that type as priest by being washed in the river (baptized) and anointed with the oil (holy spirit)

Jesus was not baptized with the spirit at his baptism

 

[Ferris Bueller]

"Flesh births flesh" is a woman's womb giving birth to a child.

Or, it's a person repenting to the law via John' baptism for repentance and being born 'according to the flesh' like the legalist in Galatians....

"...the son born according to the flesh..." Galatians 4:29​

And as a result, not being able to see or enter into the kingdom of God....

"...the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son." Galatians 4:30​

At least not until they are born again by water AND Spirit in Jesus' baptism....

3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them... Acts 19:3-6​

 

[Ferris Bueller]

See John 1:31

I've always been intrigued by this topic. How do you think John's baptism of repentance prepared the way for Jesus and made it so that "he might be revealed to Israel.” John 1:31?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The fact that we are subject to human authority is understood and granted, though the American Experiment originally limited government authority by setting up a congress of freemen, who served in congress for the very short time of two years.

Nonetheless, I didn't argue against human authority at all. Did I? I don't think I did. Your meager attempt at equivocation isn't helpful to the conversation, which is focused on "belief" authority. There are many kinds of authority in this world, but there is only one authority, granted by God the Father, who has the authority to dictate what to believe about God and his will for mankind: Jesus Christ.

The RCC is not Jesus Christ and neither does it speak for him.

Now who is being silly? Suppose there is a stream in the desert and everyone must come to that stream to get a drink. Suppose also that an armed gang guards the stream such that anyone wishing to drink, must go through the gang to get to the water? The RCC is that gang, keeping the Bible away from everyone but a few.

I disagree. First of all, the fact that people disagree over the truth doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. Second, the fact that a so-called authorized interpretation of the scriptures exists, doesn't guarantee such authority has the correct interpretation. Finally, your argument isn't against Protestantism as such. Your argument is against human nature. Factionalism is par for the course among human beings.
The fact that you don't include the RCC among the human race speaks volumes about the evil of Catholic Dogma.

You don't seem to understand what what Paul means by "traditions." He is NOT talking about an oral tradition, which stands along side the scriptures, offering additional information. He is talking about traditions that he, himself taught them, either in person or by letter. What are these "traditions?" What exactly is in view here?

For an answer to this, we read the next chapter wherein Paul indicates some of the traditions he taught them.

2Thessalonians 3:6-9
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.

Here in this passage we see how Paul uses the term "traditions". In Paul's view, the core gospel implicates a particular way of life, which logically follows from the core gospel itself. Many have noted that Paul's epistles begin with theological content and the core gospel, followed by ways of behaving and walking that are worthy of the gospel. One does not need to venture outside the scriptures to find mention of these traditions. In Paul's mind, the idea that one should not eat the bread of another man without paying for it, follows logically from the core gospel.

Paul is NOT talking about a set of doctrines that appear outside the scriptures that also hold authority over believers.

Let's take your comments in RED one-by-one . . .

In post #169 - YOU stated emphatically:
"Unlike you, some of us aren't subject to human authority"

Now, you're back-pedaling from that statement and claiming you never said it. If you're going to continue to LIE - just tell me now and we'll stop having this conversation.
As for "no human authority" regarding the Gospel - you're WRONG again. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, let his readers know that they indeed had those who are "above" them in Christ:

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

Secondly, your historically-bankrupt claim that the Catholic Church kept the Bible away from "everyone but a few" shows me that, like every other ignorant anti-Catholic - you didn't do your homework. For centuries before the invention of the printing press, Bibles were chained to pulpits to protect them from being stolen. It took several years to hand-copy a single Bible - and at great expense.

Some, who were rich enough would hire people to have their own unauthorized Bibles copied - which were FULL of errors. It got even worse when they tried to translate them into their vernacular languages - and THIS was the reason that the Church forbade the unauthorized copying and translating of Bibles in the 13th century. It might ALSO interest you to know that until the dawn of the 20th century - MOST of the world was functionally illiterate and had ZERO use for a copy of the Bible. In any given 3-year period, virtually the ENTIRE Bible is read aloud and sermonized on - so the Bible was "withheld" from NO ONE.

Thirdly - your moronic claim that factions are "par for the course" among humans completely rejects the Biblical prohibition of factions.
The entire 3rd Chapter of 1 Corinthians, speaks out AGAINST factions. At the Last Supper - Jesus prayed fervently that His Church remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE and in complete unity (John 17:20-23).
Tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant factions thumbs its nose at this prayer . . .

Finally - as to 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul is absolutely talking about ORAL Tradition being ON PAR with Scripture. This was the same for the Jews in the OT. YOUR problem is that you are trying to redefine what "Tradition" means in a Biblical context. Tradition ISN'T simply the way a person acts of what he does - but what is TAUGHT ORALLY. This is the Biblical context of Tradition - and that's why Paul says:
.
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."

Notice that it says, "You were TAUGHT" - not, "which you observed".
And, by the way - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.