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!
LOL That's exactly what I'd had in mind.
To say Galatians 4 taught that "water baptism" birthed "slaves" is to say that water baptism represents the heresy, the "accursed" "false Gospel" Galatians 1:6-9, of putting men under the works of the Law Galatians 4:21 Galatians 5:11 ("preaching")--that is impossible of course, since water baptism is an integral facet of Christianity, which is to be accepted, and never rejected, whereas the false Gospel that puts men under Law is to be rejected--because that was what Paul was militating against throughout that epistle.
Sorry to butt in to this but the very fact that it’s on the same subject as the last post makes it rather disconcerting. The baptism of water is to repentance re Hebrews 6 oncely given. That it is the baptism of Christian understanding according to the breath of Jesus being before Pentecost, and in reference to the renewal of the soul when God breathed on Adam, that is the first baptism where the taste is experienced. One needs to (not necessary) proceed past that which becomes teachers. Baptism of fire is the result, with the same stipulations from my previous post (albeit on a different thread)
1. Same as I've said
2. It wouldn't necessarily be disconcerting would it? Maybe he just thought it was "handy" that he'd just been speaking on that--I know that's happened to me before.
He was thinking that John 3's "flesh gives birth to flesh" corresponded with "natural sons of Abraham--Jews" whom Galatians 4 taught were allegorically "Ishmael", "born of Jerusalem on earth [which] is enslaved together with her children", "slaves" "under Law" ; and that John 3's "spirit gives birth to spirit" corresponded with "spiritual sons of Abraham--Christians (ethnically Gentile or Jewish)" whom Galatians 4 taught were allegorically "Isaac", "born of the Jerusalem above [which] is free", "free" who are "under Grace".
He believed water baptism corresponded with the natural sons of Abraham and spirit baptism with spiritual sons of Abraham.
Abraham had at least 4-5 sons, some that may have been from the east (and perhaps the wise men? fft), but
Ishmael signifies Hagar who was from Egypt, to be technical. She was the only woman to name God “God sees us”
but the reference in Galatians 4 is to those who are born under law. Which in a sense we all are, biblically also.
The spiritual children, according to the promise, are Abraham’s children, but only from Sarah. Sara means grace and is the sign of the new Jerusalem, our mother. So Sarah (grace) plus faith (which is what Abraham is figurative of), is the promise given.
1. Hagar birthed Ishmael--Hagar signifies earthly Jerusalem in slavery together with her children the Jews signified by Ishmael.
2. There doesn't exist a verse of Scripture where anyone but "Jews" (those practicing the works of the Law--ethnically Jewish or converts to the "Judaism" of obedience to the Law) were described as "under Law".
3a. I looked the name "Sarah" up and it means "noblewoman" or "lady" or "happy", not "grace". Where are you getting the idea that her name means "grace"?
3b. Even if Sarah's literal name were "grace", and then we chose to pair that with the arbitrary assertion that Abraham must represent "faith" (when many men of faith preceded him), in order to, needlessly, come up with the New Testament doctrine of "grace through faith", that would be "apples-to-oranges"--quite sloppy "spiritualizing".
Thanks.
I don’t think it speculation to apply that to law-keepers whether they be birthed into a Jewish family or not.
The difference in Nt rather than OT typology is applied to carnal vs not so carnal practises iirc
I believe it’s in the scripture in question.
Thanks, I quite thought so myself.
Not sure what purpose this comment serves, as that had already been granted...
Please clarify.
EDIT : I reread your claim--apparently you meant "Sarah allegorically signifies grace" not "Sarah's name means grace".
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
No, relating to God through works alone is what births slaves. Repentance without the spiritual birth is nothing more than relating to God through the effort of your own works. That's what John' baptism was. A baptism of fleshly effort to repent. An effort that births a natural man, not a spiritual man.
When you use Galatians 4, you take the entire argument there and use it--you denounce baptism as "under Law" "works of Law" and "false Gospel".
"Sarah allegorically signifies grace” yes.
↑
The difference in Nt rather than OT typology is applied to carnal vs not so carnal practises iirc
Please clarify.
NT may be shadowing the twain becoming one thru the Jew and Gentile (believers and unbelievers OT) but the allegory is about carnal minds and the mind of Christ by which reasonable service may be applied.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
John's baptism only represents the heresy of the works gospel in that it represented a person's fleshly effort to turn to God. Which we all know is futile without the necessary spiritual birth. The person born of water, only, can not, and will not inherit the kingdom. He must also be born by the Spirit, immersed and baptized by Jesus in the Spirit.
Last edited:
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
A baptism for repentance all by itself, minus the spiritual birth is what I denounce as nothing more than the futile effort of the flesh to lay hold of the kingdom of God. And I think that is what Jesus is showing Nicodemus. It is not enough to have John's baptism of water for repentance. You must also have His (Jesus') baptism of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God.
Last edited:
No, the carnal mind can only be destroyed Romans 6:6.
The Law says a clay vessel once defiled cannot be cleansed it must be destroyed.
It is better to be simple not complicated.
FIVE opinions outlined in a commentary on the water in John 3:
Okay, this David Guzik commentary lays out and discusses the five common interpretations that are out there, and it includes the opinions I’ve seen in the OP, including mine, which is that the water is living water, but this may have changed my mind for it to be point # v.
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
a. Most assuredly . . . you must be born again: Jesus is emphatic in saying that man does not need reformation, but a radical conversion by the Spirit of God. We must be born of water and the Spirit.
b. What does it mean to be born of water? We know from Joh 3:10 that whatever being born of water is, it should have been familiar to Nicodemus from the Old Testament.
i. Some have thought born of water means to be baptized. Water here may represent baptism, but there is no real Old Testament foundation for this.
ii. Some have thought that born of water refers to our physical birth, since we come forth from a sack of water. This approach is more attractive, but doesn’t it simply state the obvious? However, it does make a good parallel with the idea of that which is born of the flesh in Joh 3:6.
iii. Some have thought that born of water means to be born again by the Word of God. In other passages of Scripture, water represents the Word, as we are washed by the water of the word (Eph 5:26).
iv. Some have thought that born of water means to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, the living water of Joh 7:38-39.
v. Some have thought that born of water means to receive the water of cleansing prophesied in Eze 36:25-28 as part of the New Covenant. This is the approach has the most weight (though it is a tough call), because of its firm connections to Old Testament prophecy - which Jesus says Nicodemus should have known to understand these things.
c. That which is born of the flesh is flesh: Without the new birth of the Spirit, all works of righteousness are tainted by the flesh. Yet, everything that a Spirit-led man does can be pleasing to God.
d. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again”: Again, Nicodemus did marvel at this statement, because he - like most all Jews of his time - believed they already had the inner transformation promised in the New Covenant. Jesus wants him to take hold of the fact that he does not have it, and must be born again.
i. We should not forget whom Jesus said this to. Nicodemus was a religious leader and a Pharisee. By all outward appearance, he was already transformed unto God. If Nicodemus must be born again, what about you and I?
e. The wind blows where it wishes: Jesus’ idea to Nicodemus is “You don’t understand everything about the wind, but you see its effects. That is just how it is with the birth of the Spirit.” Jesus wanted Nicodemus to know that he didn’t have to understand everything about the new birth before he experienced it.
4. (Joh 3:9-13) Jesus responds to the question “how can these things be?”
Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.”
a. How can these things be? Nicodemus is confused. He is so set in his thinking that the new birth has already happened to him and all of faithful Israel, that he has a hard time thinking out of that “box.” Jesus needs to keep explaining.
b. Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Jesus chides Nicodemus for not being aware of the need and the promise of the new birth, because these are plainly laid out in the Old Testament. Nicodemus knew these passages well, but believed that they had been fulfilled in regard to the new birth. But he should have known better!
Okay, this David Guzik commentary lays out and discusses the five common interpretations that are out there, and it includes the opinions I’ve seen in the OP, including mine, which is that the water is living water, but this may have changed my mind for it to be point # v.
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
a. Most assuredly . . . you must be born again: Jesus is emphatic in saying that man does not need reformation, but a radical conversion by the Spirit of God. We must be born of water and the Spirit.
b. What does it mean to be born of water? We know from Joh 3:10 that whatever being born of water is, it should have been familiar to Nicodemus from the Old Testament.
i. Some have thought born of water means to be baptized. Water here may represent baptism, but there is no real Old Testament foundation for this.
ii. Some have thought that born of water refers to our physical birth, since we come forth from a sack of water. This approach is more attractive, but doesn’t it simply state the obvious? However, it does make a good parallel with the idea of that which is born of the flesh in Joh 3:6.
iii. Some have thought that born of water means to be born again by the Word of God. In other passages of Scripture, water represents the Word, as we are washed by the water of the word (Eph 5:26).
iv. Some have thought that born of water means to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, the living water of Joh 7:38-39.
v. Some have thought that born of water means to receive the water of cleansing prophesied in Eze 36:25-28 as part of the New Covenant. This is the approach has the most weight (though it is a tough call), because of its firm connections to Old Testament prophecy - which Jesus says Nicodemus should have known to understand these things.
c. That which is born of the flesh is flesh: Without the new birth of the Spirit, all works of righteousness are tainted by the flesh. Yet, everything that a Spirit-led man does can be pleasing to God.
d. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again”: Again, Nicodemus did marvel at this statement, because he - like most all Jews of his time - believed they already had the inner transformation promised in the New Covenant. Jesus wants him to take hold of the fact that he does not have it, and must be born again.
i. We should not forget whom Jesus said this to. Nicodemus was a religious leader and a Pharisee. By all outward appearance, he was already transformed unto God. If Nicodemus must be born again, what about you and I?
e. The wind blows where it wishes: Jesus’ idea to Nicodemus is “You don’t understand everything about the wind, but you see its effects. That is just how it is with the birth of the Spirit.” Jesus wanted Nicodemus to know that he didn’t have to understand everything about the new birth before he experienced it.
4. (Joh 3:9-13) Jesus responds to the question “how can these things be?”
Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.”
a. How can these things be? Nicodemus is confused. He is so set in his thinking that the new birth has already happened to him and all of faithful Israel, that he has a hard time thinking out of that “box.” Jesus needs to keep explaining.
b. Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Jesus chides Nicodemus for not being aware of the need and the promise of the new birth, because these are plainly laid out in the Old Testament. Nicodemus knew these passages well, but believed that they had been fulfilled in regard to the new birth. But he should have known better!
Last edited:
...it doesn't--there is no correlation between water baptism and Galatians 4 which condemns putting people "under Law" Galatians 4:21 which obviously cannot include "water baptism" since that is an integral part of Christianity.
Impossible, as it is required by the New Covenant, which represents spiritual not fleshly efforts.
"Born of water" means "born of the Word of God".
Do you read "born of water" as "water baptism" then--agreeing with Catholics?
Your missing the fine tuning of what vessels are able to be clean.
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
2 Timothy 2
The context of Romans 6:6 is one (the body of sin is destroyed just as the clay vessel must be destroyed after it is defiled--it cannot be cleansed or improved or reformed); the context of Jeremiah (God is trying to avert destroying them, so he's trying to give them another chance--and he says the vessel is marred in the process of molding not defiled) is another.
Significance?
Significance?
Similar threads
