John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
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!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
from post #12, page 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, because the discussion is just on John 3--the meaning of the word "water" there--not "waterless baptism", which is a "Protestantism versus Catholicism" issue.
Please do not refer to "Protestantism" or "Catholicism", just present your argument for how to define "water" in the passage from texts everyone can agree upon. Stop trying to commandeer the thread.
Are you saying you agree the word "water" (in "water and Spirit") refers to "the Word"?
Who said that one does not need water to be baptized? Please quote who has ever said such nonsense. However, what has been said is that the water of baptism does NOT produce the New Birth. Water (H2O) does not regenerate anyone.
He's not even in this conversation, he's stuck in "Protestantism versus Catholicism" mode.
I guess he's thinking, "The 'water' in 'water and Spirit' refers to 'baptism', so if anyone denies 'water' refers to 'literal water', they're saying 'baptism' can happen 'waterlessly'." LOL
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Weren't you the one who just argued "it's not one or the other it's both"?
You said "recent man made tradition"--obviously a "Catholicism is right" statement.
Everything you say has that slant to it.
Leave that out of it.
Just argue your position without raising that issue.
That's not the topic.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
If you agree that "water" is inseparable from "spirit", then yes. Nowhere does scripture separate the two regarding baptism. We are baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", an embodiment of the Word of God. Without the Word of God, it can't be a valid baptism. Without water, it can't be a valid baptism either. Is it possible we can agree without your cheap shots?
We see that if Protestants baptize with water using the correct words (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), the baptism is considered to be valid, and this is no “novelty” of Vatican II. It’s reasonable to be uncertain in specific cases, until we know whether the correct form of words was used or not. But for the vast majority of Protestants, this is just not an issue. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans all use the correct formula.
I don't take John 3 "water and Spirit" as referring to "baptism", so this is not even relevant.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The topic is whether or not "water" is a metaphor for "Word of God". It is, but not exclusive to real, wet physical water. It's both/and, not either/or. Calvin inserted either/or dichotomies repeatedly.
The Revised Standard Version (Biblegateway) lists "Word of God" 52 times. I haven't been able to find one where it means the written Word alone. There must be at least one in that list.
...not relevant : the point was the same principle applied in other cases not just the one.
So, you agree "water" refers to "the Word of God", you just deny it's an exclusive definition (you think it also refers to water baptism). Interesting.
THE DISCUSSION IS NOT "PROTESTANTISM VS CATHOLICISM".
Last edited:
This link is to an excellent article about water and baptism....it is too long to copy and paste so if you are really wanting to be a good student of His Word then seek out wisdom from others who have been shown the answer.
"From OT Baptisms to the Cross: Behold Your Escalating Bible" From OT Baptisms to the Cross: Behold Your Escalating Bible
"From OT Baptisms to the Cross: Behold Your Escalating Bible" From OT Baptisms to the Cross: Behold Your Escalating Bible
I read the article (I skipped the last part though--got sick of reading the sloppy material) and I still don't understand where you're coming from.
What is this article supposed to indicate the word "water" (in John 3's "water and Spirit") means?
@Illuminator
I haven't heard the arguments for and against "regenerative water baptism", but that idea appears frequently in Scripture, though it has a conspicuous exception/aberration in Acts 10. Maybe you can open a thread and link me to it so we can discuss that (though I'd prefer not to have to hear a bunch of "Protestantism vs Catholicism" material mixed in with it).
I haven't heard the arguments for and against "regenerative water baptism", but that idea appears frequently in Scripture, though it has a conspicuous exception/aberration in Acts 10. Maybe you can open a thread and link me to it so we can discuss that (though I'd prefer not to have to hear a bunch of "Protestantism vs Catholicism" material mixed in with it).
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
In other words, you don't think Catholics have a right to a voice that you give to yourself. I will not be muzzled to appease your psychotic anti-Catholic bigotry.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I guess I'm trying to get everyone to dig below the surface of our common expressions and avoid using platitudes. Think about it. What does it mean to be "washed" by a word? Do all words have this quality or are some words unique?
On the other hand, maybe Paul was taking a short cut with his language, alluding to a much larger picture?
I think an examination of the text will reveal that Paul wasn't talking about salvation as such, he was talking about holiness.
Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
In this context, Paul is giving us examples from our everyday lives, to illustrate his initial exhortation to "walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel." With regard to marriage, what does it look like for those "in Christ" to live with a spouse? For the husband's part, he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love his church, he sanctified her with his word. What does that mean? Is Paul talking about the Bible here? I don't think so. A husband doesn't sanctify his wife with the Bible. Rather, a husband sanctifies his wife with a promise to love, honor and cherish her. In other words, a husband sanctifies his wife with his promises. Word = promise.
Likewise, Christ sanctifies his church with his promises. Among those promises is his promise that his disciples will never die.
John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”
Paul's point is to say, since Jesus will keep his promise to his church, a husband ought to keep promises he made to his wife such as: love, honor, protect, and nurture.
I'm not able to make the connection between Paul's point here, and Jesus' point in John 3. They seem to be talking about two different things.
Similar threads
