What does it mean to be "born again"?

[Armour of God]

The Bible translations are the "ancient" writings today. In fact over 50k New testament original fragments from 1900 yrs ago are used. A study bible gives accurate data at the time of Pentecost. Why refuse to at least use a study Bible for the material available to you. Is it because you know that it will disagree with your theory of "ancient" practices of water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

When I say ancient I'm talking about the early church in the first few centuries after Christ's death. They believed that being born again included baptism of water and spirit.

In regards to bible studies. I use several, from different denominations, not just one, because they give different interpretations and I want to understand them both. You should try that instead of looking at just one view.

The Catholic and Orthodox bible studies have one interpretation, the ancient one from the early church that being born again includes baptism of water and spirit
The Protestant bible study has the modern interpretation that being born again doesn't include baptism.

They're not in agreement on this topic.
Don't you know this?
If not, then you still have much to learn.
Cos you seem to be implying that there is only one universal interpretation on this subject. You should at least understand that there are different interpretations among Christians.
Most Christians believe that born again includes baptism
Your view is actually in the minority.

Seeing you refuse to answer my question, I'll answer it and I'll tell you why you refuse to answer it.

Why does the rest of John 3 focus on baptism, immediately after the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus?
The answer is because the whole chapter is about baptism, born again includes baptism. That's why the rest of John 3 is focused on baptism

And the reason you refuse to answer that question despite me asking countless times is because you have no legitimate answer that backs up your modern interpretation. That's why ignore this fact.

In the end I believe the ancient Catholic/Orthodox interpretation because it's better backed up by scripture

 

[William Barton]

IMO:

Adam, as the man of the family, was responsible for what happened.

The serpent was of course Satan, speaking through the serpent (Revelation 20:2).

My understanding of "born again" (John 3:3-7) is by "water and the spirit."
o. water= cleansing (because Jesus paid our penalty)
o. spirit= receiving the Spirit of God (Romans 8:26-27)

It's a beautiful world given to us to live in, but it's a fallen world. We look forward to a new heavens and earth (Revelation chapters 21, 22).

 

[JimKnox]

Sorry, i wasn't meaning to avoid your question, I just missed it cos I'm responding to several people at once, plus I'm at work.

Do I own a bible study. No
Why not. Because their are different bible studies depending on the denomination.
I prefer to look at the bible studies and arguments of the different views for different topics, from different denominations. Not just from one

For example, this topic of born again has the ancient interpretation of the early church taught by Catholics and Orthodox and has the modern interpretation taught by some protestants. And depending which bible study you use there will be a different answer.

I believe that the ancient interpretation is more accurate in this case.

Since you have appealed to both Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches for guidance in being born again, do you therefore also subscribe to infant baptism?

 

[William Barton]

Hillsage noted: <Adam wasn't born a sinner>

That was his certain fate, check out Romans 9:19.

We are all actors in a play (Shakespeare, "All the World's a Stage").

 

[Hillsage]

Hillsage noted:
<He (Adam) was not a sinner>

Not quoted correctly above; in post 147 (first line) I said;
"He wasn't BORN a sinner, ........he was CREATED ..... the first..Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38) and he was not a sinner."

IMO:
We are talking here about nature. Someone lacking a sinful nature by definition does not sin.

So are you then saying that Adam, the first SON OF GOD, who was created by God, was created with a sinful nature? Because Adam did sin, as the son of God, but Jesus did not.

Critically thinking, Adam wasn't even the first sinner of mankind....right? Eve was! Let's apply that truth to your "Rom 5" comment.

Adam as the man of the family was responsible.

Not scriptural. Adam and Eve were ONE FLESH. Eve wasn't under Adam until after they both sinned. That's when God cursed Eve to be ruled over by Adam. (Gen 3:16).

My understanding of "born again" (John 3:3-7) is by "water and the spirit,"

My understanding is 'born again' is for the spirit only. The only reference to water (3:4,5) had to do with Nicodemus not understanding Jesus' 'born again' spiritual comment. Nicodemus gave Jesus a question which had nothing to do with a spirit birth, but a fleshly one. Jesus therefore explained that a physical birth comes with a fetus surrounded by the water of the womb.

He then goes in to explaining the RE-birth of an already born human (spirit, soul, body). And Jesus does so, not with a water analogy, but with a "wind blowing" analogy.

JOH 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8* 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.

i.e. water= cleansing (because Jesus paid our penalty) and spirit= receiving the Spirit of God (Romans 8:26-27), who helps our own spirits.

ROM 8:26 Likewise the spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

As a tongue praying Charismatic this is a verse we quote because we were taught, you receive the Holy Spirit of God when you're born again. And it is that Holy Spirit who is doing the praying to GOD through us. My theology NOW, disagrees with my Pentecostal AND Charismatic theological upbringing. Why would the Holy Spirit of GOD in me, have to pray to GOD?.....The Holy Spirit of GOD is God. But this is also off topic for the thread. But it is my honest answer to your last post's quote.

 

[Armour of God]

Since you have appealed to both Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches for guidance in being born again, do you therefore also subscribe to infant baptism?

I wouldn't say I've appealed to those churches for guidance. I've just looked at their interpretation on this matter just as I've looked at the modern interpretation and believe that theirs is more credible.

I'm not too sure about infant baptism. I think it's probably best for a person to be old enough to choose Christ first and then get baptised.

 

[Lambano]

Is it possible He was referring to the "living water" He spoke of to the woman at the well?

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14)

Okay, @MostlyConfused; that was an unexpected turn. Take me down this path and let's see where it leads.

Several questions come to mind, but I think I'll hold on to them for now so that you can feel free to explore a little bit.

 

[Lambano]

Lotta water running in John.

Water changing to wine. Water that satisfies our thirst. Water that wells up within us. Walking on water. Healing waters. Cleansing water. Water that re-births us.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Water that re-births us.

Precious friend, I think this is on my 'pay-grade level', so I will take an exploring "stab at it":

"...By The Washing of Regeneration and Renewing Of The Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5 AV)​

​

Point being, Under God's Grace, Today, Is This "what men / [ Confusing ] traditions"
do for us in water baptism?

Or?:

What God "Does For us [ Spiritual re-birth? ]", Because Of:

"Which He Shed on us Abundantly Through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (Titus 3:6 AV)

​

What think ye?

 

[JimKnox]

I wouldn't say I've appealed to those churches for guidance. I've just looked at their interpretation on this matter just as I've looked at the modern interpretation and believe that theirs is more credible.

I'm not too sure about infant baptism. I think it's probably best for a person to be old

enough to choose Christ first and then get baptised.

..." chose Christ  first and then get baptised ..." you said.

This is what we have been saying Baptism does not save us. Choosing Christ saves us.
If baptism saves us then the pedobaptisers are correct. But we know they are not.

 

[Armour of God]

..." chose Christ  first and then get baptised ..." you said.

This is what we have been saying Baptism does not save us. Choosing Christ saves us.
If baptism saves us then the pedobaptisers are correct. But we know they are not.

I did also say that I'm not sure about infant baptism. In my mind maybe it is still viable.

What if a person does choose Jesus but does not get baptized?

 

[JimKnox]

I did also say that I'm not sure about infant baptism. In my mind maybe it is still viable.

What if a person does choose Jesus but does not get baptized?

Such a person is a born again child of God.

BTW: Paul never uses the phrase "born again".

 

[Armour of God]

Such a person is a born again child of God.

BTW: Paul never uses the phrase "born again".

That's true. Apparently the term born again only appears twice in the bible, both in John 3. Given that fact the term sure does get used and discussed a lot, perhaps overly.

I suppose my belief on this topic more closely resembles that of the Baptist church

What do you make of the fact that immediately after the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus the rest of the chapter focuses on baptism?

 

[Brakelite]

To be born again means that because you have surrendered your life unconditionally to God, and turned away for your sinful lifestyle, the power of sin and the hold it previously had on your life is now broken. You no longer are a slave, and you can now walk free from the addictions, habits, and sinful practises that dominated your previous existence. You are a new creature in Christ, having hope of living in His righteousness which is offered to you as a gift, and of eternal life. All through the sacrifice of the cross and the continuing ministry of Christ as your High Priest in the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary.
At the time of your conversion, it may be that you didn't understand the power of the gospel to accomplish all the above, all you were doing was responding to the Holy Spirit convicting you of sin. And you wanted a fresh beginning. And God responded to your faith and that's exactly what you got. A fresh start as a new born babe in Christ and with much to learn and experience.

 

[MostlyConfused]

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14)

Okay, @MostlyConfused; that was an unexpected turn. Take me down this path and let's see where it leads.

Several questions come to mind, but I think I'll hold on to them for now so that you can feel free to explore a little bit.

I don't know how to go down that path! I only know that I suspect that Jesus was not saying that you cannot see or enter the Kingdom unless you are first born naturally and I also do not think He was saying you cannot see or enter the Kingdom unless a human baptizes you with earthly water first.

So I take it to mean the water from above (from when God separated the waters from above from the waters below). The water that if you drink you will never thirst. The water of the Word.

 

[JimKnox]

That's true. Apparently the term born again only appears twice in the bible, both in John 3. Given that fact the term sure does get used and discussed a lot, perhaps overly.

I suppose my belief on this topic more closely resembles that of the Baptist church

What do you make of the fact that immediately after the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus the rest of the chapter focuses on baptism?

Well first of all, the rest of the chapter is NOT about baptism. Read it again. It covers other things also, However,
It does speak of baptism. It is John's baptism. John never said: repent and believe in Christ then be baptized. This was not for making "Christian" disciples. It was for repentance and TEMPLE purification ritual.

Additionally, John 3:36 says nothing about baptism. Salvation (being born again) is predicated on belief in Christ alone.

 

[mailmandan]

To be born again is to be born from above.

In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels water with being born out of a mother’s womb and with flesh based on the answer of Nicodemus to Jesus. Simply stated in that case, two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth accompanied by amniotic "water" and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would argue that 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.

Now if "water" is 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 this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and 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. (Titus 3:5)

 

[Armour of God]

To be born again is to be born from above.

In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, there are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels water with being born out of a mother’s womb and with flesh based on the answer of Nicodemus to Jesus. Simply stated in that case, two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth accompanied by amniotic "water" and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would argue that 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.

Now if "water" is 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 this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and 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. (Titus 3:5)

The early church interpreted bring born again as involving baptism. It's what most Christians believe today and for me it makes the most sense.

Amniotic fluid is not water. Do you really think Jesus, being so wise, would make such an error?

Jesus also says "water AND spirit" implying one single event. If it was two events then he would of said "water THEN spirit". It's grammatically incorrect to assume two events here.

What are your thoughts on the facts that baptism was already a Jewish tradition?

What do you make of the fact that the rest of John 3 is focused on baptism, immediately after the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus?

 

[mailmandan]

Amniotic fluid is not water. Do you really think Jesus, being so wise, would make such an error?

I said there are some who interpret it that way. I lean more towards living water.

Jesus also says "water AND spirit" implying one single event. If it was two events then he would of said "water THEN spirit"

John 7:38 - He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

What do you make of the fact that the rest of John 3 is focused on baptism, immediately after the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus?

By the time baptism is mentioned in John 3, Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is over with and He has moved on. John 3:22 - After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. Verse 22 is out of context with verse 5. What is still in context with verse 5 are verses 14-18, in which believing in Him (and not baptism) is connected with receiving eternal life.

 

[Armour of God]

By the time baptism is mentioned in John 3, Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is over with and He has moved on

I think it's connected, that's why it's still in the same chapter, immediately after the conversation.

Baptism already existed in Jewish tradition which is another reason why I think they're talking about baptism

Jesus says something like, "your a Jewish teacher yet you don't understand what I'm saying". This makes me believe that his not teaching anything new but something that was already part of Jewish tradition, baptism.

The early church interpreted bring born again as involving baptism. It's what most Christians believe today and for me it makes the most sense.