Born Again

[Atemi]

Atemi,

I was a school teacher at one time and my wife recently retired as a school teacher. I can assure you that there is a problem with the grammar and syntax for your view.

What a coincidence, as my wife is a school teacher as well. I am also sure that this would not impress you.

Your occupation or your wife’s occupation are irrelevant.

It is not a fiction, and you can’t slip the noose by making a false claim that it is.

I submit it is a false claim that there is any problem with the syntax.

Maybe with further study you will discover this.

Furthermore, you did not establish, as you claim, anything for context that supposedly supports your position.

Of course I did. I supplied the very context of the Scripture in question. That is not found in the single verse cited.

Christ and Nicodemus are clear as to exactly what they are talking about and what Jesus Himself is contrasting.

We can ignore what Nicodemus and Jesus are actually talking about, but that only opens the door to the error that this text is a reference to the ritual of water baptism.

The entire context is water baptism

That sounds good, until we see that nowhere in the conversation is water baptism ever addressed.

What is addressed, explicitly by both parties, is natural birth.

and the subsequent passages speak directly of John baptizing as well as Jesus and the disciples baptizing nearby.

I am sorry, but Jesus and Nicodemus never mention that.

They do mention natural birth and spiritual rebirth, however.

You are wrong about John 1:13. It refers to how man is naturally born through the actions of man and not simply blood lines.

Incorrect.

Nothing in that verse is speaking of actual contents of childbirth.

Here is the text again:

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is the Catholic NJB to confirm that even Catholic scholars understand what I have stated:

“who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself.”

That is one of the silliest things I’ve heard as a deflection in ages.

If you think Catholic scholars are being silly, then that is an issue that will need to be dealt with.

You thought previously that your credentials as a teacher should carry some weight on this issue. If so, you should have no problem accepting the credentials of Catholic scholars and the blessing of the RCC they have on their translation either.

Jewish women saw their water break just like all women? Of course that’s true, but how does that establish your interpretation in John 3?

You were the one that mentioned “how the Jews…viewed natural child birth.”

How they actually viewed live childbirth is how women do today. Nothing has changed.

Scripture supports scripture, and you will not find any evidence in scripture that associates child birth with amniotic fluid. It simply isn’t there.

Scripture is not a medical text.

Your objection is irrelevant.

If your objection was relevant, that would mean any and every singular mention in Scripture cannot be true or trusted as accurate…as it is never mentioned again.

Sorry, but one does not correctly exegete the Word of God in such a careless fashion.

If you can show it to me by scripture, I might begin to think that your view is worth considering. Trust me that when you do your search for the evidence…you’ll come up empty.

Natural life comes from water. This is introduced in the very beginning of Scripture.

Gen 1:20 Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that have life…"

This is the first concept of water God introduces in His Word.

Yes, the thread is about far out teachings on John 3 and baptism, and your view is the “far out teaching” under discussion.

I personally believe that accepting the context of verse 5 is a more coherent view than the interpretation that Jesus did not really mean what He actually said.

If you think that an exception to salvation that does not happen to include water baptism somehow sets the rule, then you need to take a course in logic. Water baptism is necessary as the norm.

Is that what Jesus said?

“no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

I do not see what part of “no one…unless” is hard to understand.

God in his mercy and kindness will make exceptions

Is that what God said?

Again, no.

Obviously He was not talking about the ritual of water baptism in this text.

…

 

[Atemi]

Essentially, unless one is cleansed by God and receives His Spirit (all a monergistic work of God), then one will not enter the kingdom of God. This interpretation seems to make the most sense- trying to incorporate baptism into the verse seems quite anachronistic.

I agree that this text is most sensically interpreted as not to be speaking of the ritual water baptism. This is true regarding all Christian understandings of water baptism, even including the Roman Catholic doctrine on the ritual.

…

 

[babylonsfalling]

I don’t think so. The text clearly implies this.

Both before and after the verse in question, natural birth is contrasted with spiritual re-birth by both parties in the conversation:

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

If we actually listen to the conversation without bias, we can see it quite clearly.<—REALLY…WE can see it?! Who’s “WE”?!

Personally, I think one of the strangest interpretations of this text is the claim that when Jesus says no one may enter the Kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit, He really, really means people CAN enter the Kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit.

Surely that has got to be one of the greatest stretches I have seen.

…

I grew up Catholic, left the Church and have been in Presbyterian Churches, Baptist Churches, Fundy Churches, and who knows HOW many non denom churches and I’ve NEVER heard be before. I’ve never heard it in any Bible studies either. Not seen it on any websites before this either. Not even had a conversation with any Christian who possessed such a notion.

 

[Atemi]

I grew up Catholic, left the Church and have been in Presbyterian Churches, Baptist Churches, Fundy Churches, and who knows HOW many non denom churches and I’ve NEVER heard be before. I’ve never heard it in any Bible studies either. Not seen it on any websites before this either. Not even had a conversation with any Christian who possessed such a notion.

Learning is a good thing.

If we come to the table assuming we heard everything about Scripture there is to hear, then we close ourselves off from growing.

Just follow the actual conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus and they tell us what they are talking about.

One thing we can know for sure, however, is that Jesus left no room for this text to be about the ritual of water baptism.

…

 

[babylonsfalling]

Learning is a good thing. <—Sure as long as your not learning from a false teacher.

If we come to the table assuming we heard everything about Scripture there is to hear, then we close ourselves off from growing. <—That doesn’t mean that learning includes believing every ridiculous interpretation which someone comes up with.

Just follow the actual conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus and they tell us what they are talking about. <—NEWSFLASH: People have been following that conversation for centuries without coming up with the “interpretation” that Christ was “telling us about” embryonic fluid.

One thing we can know for sure, however, is that Jesus left no room for this text to be about the ritual of water baptism. <—REALLY…who’s we? I’ve been in and out of different churches all my life and I’m not 50 years old, and I never heard that. What most people seem to be sure of is that He wasn’t talking about embryonic fluid. The notion that he was talking about Baptism is common.

…

I think all we have with that “interpretation” is an attempt at grabbing onto any interpretation as long as it’s not the Catholic interpretation.

Among Christendom, the idea that Christ was talking about Baptism has always been common. The idea he was talking about need to be born of embryonic fluid……that was just silly.

 

[Brywan]

Obviously He was not talking about the ritual of water baptism in this text

.

Sorry, but it’s not obvious to everyone.

And immediately after the Nicodemus passage, John writes this:

“After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea; and there He was spending time with them, and baptizing. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim,** because there was much water there**, and they were coming, and were being baptized.” (John 3:22, 23)

What’s the point of reinforcing the Nicodemus passage in this way? No amniotic fluid flowing in Aenon near Salim. Sorry, but the the most obvious interpretation is the one which most people would come up with if they read this passage with no prior doctrinal bias.

The whole amniotic fluid thing is an example of deductive reasoning in interpretation: Jesus couldn’t POSSIBLY have meant water baptism here, because we know that’s not necessary to be saved. So what COULD He have meant? Let’s dig a little deeper and see if we can come up with the REAL meaning…etc etc etc.

 

[Rogare]

One question that Atemi brought up that nobody has ventured to answer is one that I feel should be addressed:

**Insisting that Jesus says no one can enter the Kingdom without being water baptised but He really, really means some may enter the Kingdom without being water baptised qualifies on its face./B

The Catholic Church holds that it is still possible to enter Heaven w/out baptism, yet that flatly contradicts what Jesus stated if this verse is truly talking about baptism.**

 

[Nita]

One question that Atemi brought up that nobody has ventured to answer is one that I feel should be addressed:

Insisting that Jesus says no one can enter the Kingdom without being water baptised but He really, really means some may enter the Kingdom without being water baptised qualifies on its face.
I think that should be a separate thread.

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

I pointed to John 1:12 and you said that it meant blood lines which I still contend is nonsense. You responded with this:

Nothing in that verse is speaking of actual contents of childbirth.

Here is the text again:

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is the Catholic NJB to confirm that even Catholic scholars understand what I have stated:

“who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself.”

If you think Catholic scholars are being silly, then that is an issue that will need to be dealt with.

You thought previously that your credentials as a teacher should carry some weight on this issue. If so, you should have no problem accepting the credentials of Catholic scholars and the blessing of the RCC they have on their translation either.

First of all the quoted Catholic scholars from the NAB do not support your statement of blood lines. The reference supports my contentions not yours. Born anew and born again are of God and are not by blood, human will, or human desire. The former is through water baptism while the latter is the natural forces involved in human reproduction. Get a grip on what you say, what I say, and what the scholars say. The grammar and syntax issues presented in my original post to you are correct. Your dislike for those facts will not make your contrary assertions true. I suggest you do more homework on this one.

You were the one that mentioned “how the Jews…viewed natural child birth.”
…
Scripture is not a medical text.

I would agree and I would suggest that you therefore abruptly abandoned your errant amniotic fluid theory.

Natural life comes from water. This is introduced in the very beginning of Scripture.

Gen 1:20 Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that have life…"

This is the first concept of water God introduces in His Word.

…

You really shouldn’t have gone to Genesis for evidence. First of all, Gen 1:20 is not speaking to the issue of natural human child birth and the amniotic fluid which is what it would have to do. Now that is absolutely fatal to any attempt by you to support your notion in John 3, but that is not the biggest problem that Genesis brings to you. Genesis is most closely tied to our position and here is why:

The entire context begins with Genesis 1:1 which says:

“IN THE beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Everything is about God creating the heavens and the earth and it is not about natural human child birth and amniotic fluid. In the very next set of verses God’s “creation” involves the water and Spirit. Genesis 1:2-4 says:

“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the **Spirit of God **was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.”

In baptism we find “the water” and the “Spirit” just as in Genesis. In Genesis we see God “creating” the heavens and the earth. In Baptism we become a “new creation.” Likewise, just as God separated the light from the darkness in Genesis, God likewise sets us apart at baptism to walk in the light and no longer in darkness. Jesus is baptized by John and when he emerges from the water the Holy Spirit descends upon him. The Father speaks from heaven saying: “This is my divine son in whom I am well pleased.” When we are baptized we become “adopted sons and daughters.” There is a consistency in all of this found from the beginning of scripture right through the gospels and letters of the NT concerning water baptism.

When John baptized it was only a baptism of repentance. Christian baptism brings us into the family of God and we receive the Holy Spirit. We see this plainly in scripture particularly in the Book of Acts 19 where Paul baptizes some of John’s disciples who had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul gives them Christian baptism and they receive the Holy Spirit. Scripture is replete with references that show that Christian water baptism is regenerative.

Moreover, the Early Church Father’s are unanimous in their interpretation of John 3:1-10 in support of the Catholic view. They do not support your interpretation. You can check out quotes from them here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410frs.asp

I hope that helps and God bless.

 

[josephback]

The “embryonic fluid” interpretation is common among (some) Protestant denominations. This explanation avoids the obvious meaning of Christ’s words: to get to heaven requires water baptism (or baptism of desire or blood).

Many of these same Protestant denominations also teach that baptism is not necessary at all, and that it has no effect – it’s purely symbolic.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant

It is sadly true that such things are taught. However, I would quibble with you that the meaning is obvious. In truth I submit that without the Church I for one would be pretty confused. The teacher is essential to understanding. Hooray for the Church:thumbsup:

 

[Pax]

One question that Atemi brought up that nobody has ventured to answer is one that I feel should be addressed:

Insisting that Jesus says no one can enter the Kingdom without being water baptised but He really, really means some may enter the Kingdom without being water baptised qualifies on its face.

Rogare,

Actually, I did answer that in an earlier post to Atemi. Please be advised that an exception does not set the rule. God is merciful and it is unreasonable to assume or believe that God would not allow someone to enter the kingdom if they believed and loved the Lord, but were otherwise unable to be baptized. The good thief on the cross would be a quick scriptural example of an exception. There is no way that he was going to get baptized under those circumstances yet the Lord said that he would see him in paradise.

Likewise, all of the individuals in the OT that are now in heaven never received Christian baptism, but that does not preclude Christian water baptism as the norm for entering God’s family, washing away sin, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We are bound by what the Lord set out for us including all that is associated with Christian water baptism. That is part of the New Covenant and God has made promises associated with it. That, however, does not limit or bind God’s mercy in such a way that exceptions cannot be made by God. We do not make, create, or encourage exceptions. That is God’s domain and he will save as He wills no matter what the circumstances might allow or not allow for the Church to administer baptism.

I hope that helps.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Once again, I would like to point you to the conversation itself. Christian baptism had not been instituted yet so Nicodemus would have had no idea what Jesus was referring to. As a high ranking Jew, well versed in the Old Testament, it seems entirely natural to assume that Jesus was references Ezekiel 36 as I said earlier. This is an allusion that Nicodemus would have understood. I still maintain that it is anachronistic to read Christian baptism back into John 3:5.

Even though Christian baptism had not yet been officially instituted, baptism nevertheless was not an unfamiliar practice to the Jews of that time, as non-Jewish converts to the Jewish religion were baptised or ritually washed with water to remove their Gentile impurities. In view of Ezekiel 36 and water washing, I think Nicodemus would have understood.

I believe what Jesus was saying is that you have to have your sins washed away, your sins to be forgiven, in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

And how do you get your sins forgiven? Acts 2:38 answers this, Peter says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Here we have actual water and the Holy Spirit associated together, since baptism means to dunk in water. Peter says also at 1Peter 4:21 “…baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience.”

I understand why one might think it anachronistic to read Christian baptism into John 3:5, at least if one doesn’t have benefit of apostolic tradition. But Peter didn’t think it anachronistic, so therefore we shouldn’t either.

 

[Atemi]

I think that should be a separate thread.

This thread is about interpretations of John 3:5.

Certain interpretations are off the table for discussions in a thread about interpretations?

…

 

[Atemi]

One question that Atemi brought up that nobody has ventured to answer is one that I feel should be addressed:

Insisting that Jesus says no one can enter the Kingdom without being water baptised but He really, really means some may enter the Kingdom without being water baptised qualifies on its face.

The Catholic Church holds that it is still possible to enter Heaven w/out baptism, yet that flatly contradicts what Jesus stated if this verse is truly talking about baptism.

You are correct.

This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, IMO, that cannot be coherently addressed.

When an interpretation demands I do not believe my Lord, I think that is more questionable than just about any other interpretation mentioned in this thread so far.

…

 

[Atemi]

Actually, I did answer that in an earlier post to Atemi.

Actually, no one did.

Please be advised that an exception does not set the rule.

Saying there are exceptions when Jesus explicitly declares there are no exceptions does not help.

The good thief on the cross would be a quick scriptural example of an exception. There is no way that he was going to get baptized under those circumstances yet the Lord said that he would see him in paradise.

This proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was definitely NOT speaking of water baptism in John 3:5.

The evidence you cite is conclusive.

What the evidence does prove is that sinners are saved by faith, just as the Scriptures confirm.

Likewise, all of the individuals in the OT that are now in heaven never received Christian baptism, but that does not preclude Christian water baptism as the norm for entering God’s family, washing away sin, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Our Lord said nothing about any “norm.”

Our Lord Jesus said “no one…unless.”

That, however, does not limit or bind God’s mercy in such a way that exceptions cannot be made by God.

God already told us His exceptions in the text: “no one…unless.”

We do not make, create, or encourage exceptions.

Then why do some create exceptions where the text explicitly precludes them?

…

 

[mackbrislawn]

John 3:5
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.

Is saying that our Savior means embryonic fluid when referring to water the craziest exegesis of this verse ever? While discussing the necessity of Baptism with a friend this is his explanation of what our Lord means when referring to water.

It’s not exegesis, it’s eisegesis!

 

[Pax]

…
Saying there are exceptions when Jesus explicitly declares there are no exceptions does not help.
…
…
Our Lord said nothing about any “norm.”

…

Jesus did not say “there are no exceptions”, but he did set up water baptism as the “norm”. You seem to be objecting to the fact that I use the word “norm” which Jesus did not use, even though it is the clear result of his command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit per Matthew 28:1. If you wish to split hairs over terminology then please do so without setting up a double standard. Nowhere in John 3 does Jesus say “without exception”. Moreover, the good thief on the cross is a clear exception made by Jesus himself.

Furthermore, my reference to those of the OT that are saved is a perfect example of multitudes of exceptions to the rite of Christian baptism. The problem with that one for you is that it also plays heavily into the Catholic position for water baptism even though they did not go through the Christian rite. We know this because scripture refers to them being baptized by God into Moses with water. We find this in 1 Cor 10:1-4 where Paul tells us:

“I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

That passage is in the context of being saved by God.

Water baptism is manifested throughout scripture in association with Christ and being saved. Baptism itself is manifested in more than one way and thus demonstrates that exceptions to the Christian rite of water baptism(that which is the norm) do exist in God’s plan of salvation. The exceptions would include such things as “baptism of desire” as taught by the Catholic Church and manifested in the example of the good thief who had no opportunity to be baptized as prescribed by Jesus.

Before this thread gets to an end, it would probably be useful to assemble all of the evidence that gets submitted in the thread for review concerning water baptism. ISTM, that when one assembles all of the evidence it overwhelmingly points one way and in favor of the Catholic teaching on baptism. Dribbling out the evidence as we are doing thus far makes the case less cohesive and compelling.

God bless.

 

[Rogare]

Furthermore, my reference to those of the OT that are saved is a perfect example of multitudes of exceptions to the rite of Christian baptism.

So the fact that thousands of people are saved without water baptism is somehow supposed to support the fact that" unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"? That’s odd logic.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

It is sadly true that such things are taught. However, I would quibble with you that the meaning is obvious. In truth I submit that without the Church I for one would be pretty confused. The teacher is essential to understanding. Hooray for the Church:thumbsup:

You’re right, It’s obvious because the Catholic Church taught the necessity of water baptism long before John 3 was even written. Jesus didn’t leave us a book – he left us the Church as our teacher. The book (NT) is a product of the Church, guided by the Spirit, written in the first Christian century. The contents of the OT and NT were selected, canonized and named “the Bible” when the Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old.

Jim Dandy

 

[Rogare]

You’re right, It’s obvious because the Catholic Church taught the necessity of water baptism long before John 3 was even written.

Can you please document that statement? That seems like too bold of a claim to take your authority on. Please share your source for this information.