Born Of Water

  • Thread starter Thread starter heisenburg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

heisenburg

Guest
So…
I am completely taken aback and astonished at something…

I sometimes listen to a program on Christian radio called “Back to the Bible” I understand its from a Fundamentalist POV, but thats OK. The guy still often has good points. However, I was taken completely aback when I heard him talking about the conversation Jesus was having with Nicodemus. Here is his interpretation of the bible…
Water Birth is referring to womb birth, Spiritual birth is referring to Baptism of the Heart. Ultimately, he was saying that Baptism is not required…

Now, I’ve heard it before in private conversations with other Fundamentalists I know, but i guess the way the guy was preaching it just struck a nerve.

Were in the world did this understanding come from. It seems like a new teaching, though I could be wrong. I know I’ve never read any ECF that taught this. so why is this all of a sudden a new popular teaching on baptism.

Also, for those that believe this, were are the ECF quotes. What about the rest of the bible that talks about baptism. What about the fact the no where does it mention anything relating the water birth to Womb birth.

Must be born of water, and spirit.
Thats called Baptism…

Or is this really just an attempt to go even further in saying we don’t have to do anything…

Frustrated, but confused… any enlightenment will help

In Christ
 
Is the stand being taken by those who oppose infant baptism that God forbids it or is it because it isn’t necessary for salvation? Is it considered ineffective? How do they arrive at the legitimate age for Baptism? As I understand it, kids in Awana, for example, are encouraged to take Jesus as their personal savior as early as five or six years old. I must be missing something.
 
no… this is a stand against baptism being required period… infant or adult. People just twisting words I guess
 
I think it all comes down to “Faith Alone.”

i.e. Anything and everything else is a work of man, therefore, it must be unnecessary.

Problem is that view doesn’t jive with literal readings of scripture so ya gotta come up with a way to explaing how its true…so you get some rather creative readings of scripture.
heisenburg said:
no… this is a stand against baptism being required period… infant or adult. People just twisting words I guess
Click to expand...
 
heisenburg said:
So…
I am completely taken aback and astonished at something…

I sometimes listen to a program on Christian radio called “Back to the Bible” I understand its from a Fundie POV, but thats OK. The guy still often has good points. However, I was taken completely aback when I heard him talking about the conversation Jesus was having with Nicodemus. Here is his interpretation of the bible…
Water Birth is referring to womb birth, Spiritual birth is referring to Baptism of the Heart. Ultimately, he was saying that Baptism is not required…
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve heard this argument, and it may be the single silliest argument in all of Christianity. What the argument is saying is that to be saved one must first be born. In the first place, that dooms every miscarried and aborted baby. So much for the mercy of God. But much more importantly, it’s a ridiculous statement. Since when do we ever tell people, in listing instructions or requirements, “in the first place you have to exist”? :rolleyes:

Let’s see. To get a driver’s license, you have to exist and pass the written and driving tests. To become a doctor you have to exist and go to med school and have an internship. To recover from a cold you have to exist and get plenty of rest and drink lots of fluids. I could go on and on, but it’s all just too silly. Did Jesus really think that He needed to explain to thinking, listening people, who by definition had already been born, that to be saved they first needed to be born? That would have been the great “well duh!” moment of His entire earthly ministry. So much for being a great teacher!

Another point is that nowhere in the bible is being born referred to as “born of water”. “Born of woman” yes, but never “born of water”.
 
Dr, Kroll is a smart guy, but he goes out of his way to make the bible fit his theology at times.
 
When I was a Southern Baptist, I used to make that same argument. Born again, means, first you’re born - born of water or childbirth , then you get saved and are born again - born of spirit. Now that I’m Catholic, I see how silly that sounds. A chapter or two before that conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus is baptized and the spirit descended like a dove. Water and the spirit. After the Nicodemus scene, Jesus and his disciples go out baptizing. In Acts Peter says to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. Again water and spirit. Later in Acts, Paul is talking to the Ephesians, and asks them if they’ve received the Holy Spirit. They didn’t know what it was. Paul asks how they were baptized and they say with the baptism of John. Paul then baptizes them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He then lays his hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit. Again, water and spirit. That theme is all through the New Testament. The illogical idea of child birth, as someone pointed out earlier, stems from the idea of faith alone. Baptism would qualify as some sort of work.
 
heisenburg said:
no… this is a stand against baptism being required period… infant or adult. People just twisting words I guess
Click to expand...
PEOPLE just twisting words? Don’t count Satan out… it would suit him just fine if all christians rejected the NEED for the sacraments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top