Born again with water and the Spirirt

[Nelka]

A non-denominational protestant at work says that the water is the birth water during pregnancy and baptism isn’t needed. He also states that a child as young as three can choose to follow God and be saved.

How do I explain to him about the water part and he couldn’t understand when I said we receive God’s sanctifying Grace through baptism and not suddenly making a decision in the supermarket one day.

 

[MT1926]

A non-denominational protestant at work says that the water is the birth water during pregnancy and baptism isn’t needed.

I find this line of reasoning comes from them reading the word again into the verse.

John 3:3-5
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew,[a] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

First I would point out that this is one event not 2. Jesus doesn’t say born of water (natural birth) and born AGAIN of spirit.

Second, you could point to Jesus own Baptism where we see the Spirit descending on Him like a dove in John 1.

Third you could point to later in John 3 where right after this discourse Jesus went out an Baptized.

Finally, you could point towards John 1:13. where St. John already defined child birth as being born of blood not being born of water.

There is way more than this on Baptism. But to be honest unless you can convince him that the water isn’t amniotic fluid you are wasting your time on a closed minded individual who only accepts verses that correspond with his theology.

I have actually had it said to me, on Baptism, I don’t know the meaning of that verse but that verse can’t mean what you says it means because I already know we don’t need to be Baptized to be saved.

Basically, instead of reading the Bible as a whole they have settled on their interpretation of one verse, or book, of scripture and interpret the entire Bible based on that book. That’s basically what Martin Luther did on justification. He starts with his understanding of Romans and then goes back and reads Jesus words in this light.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

A non-denominational protestant at work says that the water is the birth water during pregnancy and baptism isn’t needed.

I would go with the line from 1 Peter 3 – “baptism [which] saves you now.” See if he has a problem with that verse. (If so, then you’ve got real problems – he doesn’t believe that Scripture is inerrant!)

But, then follow up with this logic: If baptism saves, and the water of baptism is the amniotic fluid, then that means that all are saved, even those who have never heard the name of Jesus, and those who refuse to profess Him as Lord and Savior.

I don’t think he’ll be willing to accept that implication (which follows directly from Scripture and his take on it, unfortunately). If it’s a choice between “Scripture” and “his personal interpretation”, you know which one needs to give way… right?