John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[GracePeace]

John's call to repentance. Nothing more than natural birth of man's doing.

Are Gentiles, who've never heard of John, "born of the will of man" and in need of being "born of the Spirit" to enter God's spiritual Kingdom?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

It's not even relevant.

Just answer the question anyway. You know John's baptism for repentance is repentance to the law.

 

[GracePeace]

Just answer the question anyway. You know John's baptism for repentance is repentance to the law.

You're trying to reinvent the wheel.
You're trying to solve a problem where there is no problem.
Jesus is simply correcting Nicodemus's misunderstanding.
You know that Jesus is just correcting Nicodemus's misunderstanding.

 

[GracePeace]

Just answer the question anyway. You know John's baptism for repentance is repentance to the law.

So, this Gospel was purposefully designed so as to be unintelligible to the person who only has it--it was designed so as only to be intelligible to people who have another book? We can't reliably obtain its understanding from itself?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Are Gentiles, who've never heard of John, "born of the will of man" and in need of being "born of the Spirit" to enter God's spiritual Kingdom?

Acts calls them, for example, 'God fearing Greeks'. The people of God have always had gentiles living and worshipping among them. Right from the Exodus.

 

[GracePeace]

Acts calls them, for example, 'God fearing Greeks'. The people of God have always had gentiles living and worshipping among them. Right from the Exodus.

You realize there're people who don't even believe in God (eg, Buddhists) who eventually get saved?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

So, this Gospel was purposefully designed so as to be unintelligible to the person who only has it--it was designed so as only to be intelligible to people who have another book? We can't reliably obtain its understanding from itself?

I don't think the early church had any problem knowing what 'water' was in John 3:5. In fact, I think the church fathers are on record as saying it means water baptism.

 

[GracePeace]

Acts calls them, for example, 'God fearing Greeks'. The people of God have always had gentiles living and worshipping among them. Right from the Exodus.

So, according to you, when Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus, He wasn't addressing Nicodemus's statements, He was addressing Paul's. All right, gotcha. I reject it of course but I understand.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You realize there're people who don't even believe in God (eg, Buddhists) who eventually get saved?

I don't see your point. If they lived in Israel in the time of John the Baptist, the call to repentance is for them too.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't think the early church had any problem knowing what 'water' was in John 3:5. In fact, I think the church fathers are on record as saying it means water baptism.

Yeah, they also taught that Mary was the "New Eve" and that's been debunked. LOL
Their understandings aren't definitive.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

So, according to you, when Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus, He wasn't addressing Nicodemus's statements, He was addressing Paul's. All right, gotcha. I reject it of course but I understand.

I already explained this to you. Jesus is explaining John's baptism for repentance—repentance to the law—births natural men who don't inherit the kingdom. One must also be born a spiritual person to inherit the kingdom.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Yeah, they also taught that Mary was the "New Eve" and that's been debunked. LOL
Their understandings aren't definitive.

No, the early church fathers are not the Catholic church fathers, lol. Not even close. The Catholic church is a 3rd century invention if I'm not mistaken on that time.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't see your point. If they lived in Israel in the time of John the Baptist, the call to repentance is for them too.

BTW the ECFs didn't take "water baptism" there as "John's baptism".
Before you were making a distinction between the two of them.
Now you're conflating them?
Again, if you want to say "ECFs are right--it's baptism" you'd be condemning "water baptism in the Name of Jesus" as an "accursed false Gospel--Galatians 4 says is gives birth to natural men". You don't know what you're saying.

 

[GracePeace]

I already explained this to you. Jesus is explaining John's baptism for repentance births natural men who don't inherit the kingdom. One must also be born a spiritual person to inherit the kingdom.

No, Jesus is conversing with Nicodemus, and what Nicodemus misunderstands is that he does not need to climb back into his mother's womb and come back out again to be "born again" he needs a spiritual birth.

That's the context.

 

[GracePeace]

No, the early church fathers are not the Catholic church fathers, lol. Not even close. The Catholic church is a 3rd century invention if I'm not mistaken on that time.

Irenaeus, the one who invented that rubbish, was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciples of John. Right there. Nothing to do with 3rd century anything. Nothing to do with Catholic Church.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

BTW the ECFs didn't take "water baptism" there as "John's baptism".

Yes they did, there in John 3, not baptism after the resurrection.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Irenaeus, the one who invented that rubbish, was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciples of John. Right there. Nothing to do with 3rd century anything. Nothing to do with Catholic Church.

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

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, there in John 3, not baptism after the resurrection.

I'm pretty sure I've heard that the ECFs interpreted "water and Spirit" as referring to "water baptism in the Name of Jesus is the instrument by which we are reborn spiritually" not "John's water baptism, which only births natural men, and then the Spirit birth)".

 

[GracePeace]

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

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

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I'm pretty sure I've heard that the ECFs interpreted "water and Spirit" as referring to "water baptism in the Name of Jesus is the instrument by which we are reborn spiritually

I don't think anyone argues with that point. I think we all know that New Covenant water baptism is connected to the spiritual birth in Acts.

 

[GracePeace]

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

Again, I often reject the ECFs and I reject their interpretation (ie, they interpret "water" in "water and Spirit" as meaning "baptism in the Name of the Father the Son and the Spirit" not "John's baptism") here as well.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't think anyone argues with that point. I think we all know that New Covenant water baptism is connected to the spiritual birth in Acts.

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".