Infallibility of Church?

[Glenn]

A couple of points regarding the Protestant perspective on: (1) the necessity of water baptism with respect to regeneration, and (2) baptism of infants:

First, most Protestant confessions, even those who baptize infants, do not believe in baptismal regeneration. They believe the water is an external sign of an inward reality. John the Baptist said, “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11).

Protestants and Catholics alike have been baptized with water, but who among us has been baptized with fire? Water and fire are symbols of the cleansing and purifying work of the Holy Spirit. And who is it who baptizes with the Holy Spirit? It is Christ. He is the one who saves us, because he is the one who gives us his Spirit. The passage in Matthew regarding Spirit and fire, and the passage in John regarding Spirit and water, are understood by Matthew Henry, a Protestant scholar, to mean “as with fire” and “as with water.” Water and fire are analogies of an infinitely more important invisible reality.

What saves us? How are we born again? The apostle John said, “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” It is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us, not the water. The water is for our benefit, a milestone that marks for us the beginning of our “walk in the light”. But the real work is performed by the blood of Jesus.

And how do we know that we are regenerated? The apostle Paul says, “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:6). What more can we ask for than the very Spirit of God?

What about infants? Protestants, in general, believe that their children, even prior to their own personal faith, are part of the covenant community. Their assurance that they belong to Christ is similar to the Catholic idea of “baptism by desire,” the desire of the parents for the ultimate salvation of their children. Those communions who do not baptize infants still have a ceremony of dedication, which is a symbol of the protection of the church community until the child comes into his own faith.

With respect to the Catholic perspective of baptismal regeneration of infants, we still have the question of what happens to those babies who are stillborn or aborted. According to Catholic doctrine, these children are in limbo, not in heaven. Is that really indicative of God’s justice? I think this perspective is more problematic than the Protestant notion of “age of accountability.”

As human beings, we have all been infected by the sin of Adam. Original sin means that we all have a sin nature. Regeneration does not completely remove our fallen nature. The new man, created in Christ, the new Adam, continues to struggle with the old man, which we inherited from the old Adam. We can be in a state of grace and still be in the midst of this struggle, which will last until we shed these mortal bodies and are present with Christ in heaven.

 

[Wannano]

Glenn: Thank you!! I have been struggling with my inability to answer MT1926’questions in a meaningful way. I am so grateful you arrived and so adequately explained what I was having trouble verbalizing.

I recognize the calm spirit you present and it makes me desirous to not be so reactionary.

 

[MT1926]

baptized with fire?

Fire is a symbol of God’s purifying judgement. See Dueteronomy 4:24 Moses tells us the Lord your God is a devouring fire when God judges him not allowing him to cross the Jordan into the promised land. Sirach 2 tells us gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace. In my life I see many times where I was tested by the fire of God’s judgement. Some turned out for the good some with a little charring but sometime I see I was cooked over and over again until God found perfection in my sufferings.

It is Christ.

Yes and He handed this authority to the Apostles Matthew 28.

He is the one who saves us,

Agree. But I believe Jesus intended Baptism as one of the Sacrament in which He chose to use to save us. Where as it seems others believe He chose to use just our faith alone.

to mean “as with fire” and “as with water.” W

Maybe you could point me to his talk on this. I’m curious why he chose to read the words “as with” into the verses?

How are we born again?

That’s the question I’ve been asking for 3 days now.

blood of Jesus Christ not the water.

Why does it have to be an either or? Why can’t it be both and? When St. Peter says Baptism now saves, we don’t believe it is the Baptism by itself that makes us regenerated. That would be crazy to even think someone believes that. The only reason Baptism now saves us is because of the Blood of Christ it’s both and not Baptism or the Blood.

What about infants?

That’s fine to believe this but I wasn’t asking what someone believes I was asking for someone to point out where this belief is taught in the Bible.

“baptism by desire,”

Then why not just Baptize the infant if you are already there? And like I asked what happens when they get to the age of reason do they get kicked out and have to decide for themselves if they want to rejoin?

Catholic doctrine, these children are in limbo, not in heaven.

This isn’t Catholic doctrine not sure who told you it was. The Church honestly admits that God has not revealed this to us and we don’t know. That is why she is so serious about Baptizing infants ASAP.

Original sin means that we all have a sin nature.

Catholics believe Original sin means we lack God’s free gift of grace. This lack of grace leads us to have a sinful nature when we reach an age of reason.

Regeneration does not completely remove our fallen nature.

Agreed. It gives us God’s free gift of Grace.

inherited from the old Adam.

Yes and no. From our perspective it’s not what Adam gave us it’s what Adam lost for us.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Glenn: Thank you!!

You’re welcome. I hope you are confident that in all things, you can look to Christ, “the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrew 12:2)).

God bless.

 

[MT1926]

Glenn: Thank you!! I have been struggling with my inability to answer MT1926’questions in a meaningful way. I am so grateful you arrived and so adequately explained what I was having trouble verbalizing.

What do you think Glenn said that answered any of the questions I was asking you?

I didn’t ask you any theological questions I asked you to think about my questions from a logical point of view. All I asked for was your logical opinion.

Why were you having troubles answering all I was asking was for your opinion and some terminology definitions?

Keep in mind there are no right or wrong answers when someone asks you to think of something logically. And if we don’t know each others definitions how can we even have a dialogue?

Also, even if you totally agree with me, from a logical point of view that is, that doesn’t mean I am 100% correct and you now have to convert to Catholicism. All it means is you opened your mind to looking at something from a different angle. And now that you opened your mind you can freely investigate your conclusions further, without feeling guilty or going against your conscience.

Just give some thought to what I said and think about my questions logically. If you don’t want to respond don’t. But don’t struggle or beat yourself up because you couldn’t come up with a meaningful response. Like I said there are no right or wrong answers here this isn’t a contest it’s a dialogue.

All I ask is you be honest with yourself and think about the questions and not just brush them off because you are afraid you might stumble into something that go against what you were taught to believe.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Fire is a symbol of God’s purifying judgement.

Water cleanses. Fire purges. The seraphim took a burning coal from the altar, touched it to Isaiah’s lips, and said, “your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for” (Isaiah 6: 7).

Yes and He handed this authority to the Apostles Matthew 28.

The question for Protestants is not whether the Church has authority, but whether that authority is infallible. They have come to the conclusion that only Scripture is without error. Here is a quote from Augustine:

“Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?”

reference: Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2

Orthodox Protestants have a deep regard for the authority of the Church and Church tradition. But they do not consider that authority to be on par with that of Scripture or of Christ.

The only reason Baptism now saves us is because of the Blood of Christ it’s both and not Baptism or the Blood.

That which is absolutely essential is the shed blood of Christ. Christ commanded us to baptize, so we gladly follow his command. I don’t profess to know for certain what the water does or doesn’t do. Some, however, have been saved apart from water baptism. None have ever been saved apart from the internal reality, namely, the blood of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Then why not just Baptize the infant if you are already there? And like I asked what happens when they get to the age of reason do they get kicked out and have to decide for themselves if they want to rejoin?

I personally have no problems with infant baptism. Those who wait for the child to make their own decision simply want the child to demonstrate his/her own personal faith. In this respect, “believers” baptism is similar to the Catholic confirmation.

This [limbo] isn’t Catholic doctrine not sure who told you it was.

Bishop Fulton Sheen

 

[MT1926]

Water cleanses. Fire purges. (Isaiah 6: 7).

Sure I’m good with this as well. But doesn’t this verse also contradict what you stated?

You said…

but who among us has been baptized with fire?

I said I have and based on Isiah 6 I would answer me again. Just went to confession last week my guilt was taken away and my sins were atoned for.

The question is whether that authority is infallible… only Scripture is without error.

Yes I am well aware of this but am scratching my head why this is the response to what I said? I never once brought up the Church. I simply gave a scripture verse (which you believe is without error) and stated what I believe that meant. You said only Christ Baptizes with the Holy Spirit and I pointed to Matthew 28 to show you He told the Apostles to do it for Him in His absence. If you want to point out how I am misinterpreting this verse feel free to do so, but to think I’m talking about Church Authority here just makes no sense. Heck the Catholic Church doesn’t even claim to have authority over Baptism so really not seeing why you think this applies.

I don’t profess to know for certain what the water does or doesn’t do.

Well you already stated that you believe the scriptures are without error and the Scriptures clearly state

eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,

Would you at least be willing to say that, according to the scriptures, it is possible that it is both the blood of Christ and the Water of Baptism?

None have ever been saved apart from the internal reality, namely, the blood of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t disagree with this and wouldn’t try to argue against it, however it would leave me asking how are we to explain Enoch and Elijah going to heaven prior to the coming of Christ?

In this respect, “believers” baptism is similar to the Catholic confirmation.

I’m not following what you mean by this.

Bishop Fulton Sheen

Last time I checked Bishop Fulton Sheen didn’t declare any doctrines of the Catholic Church. Not sure why you believe his opinions are official Catholic teaching? Don’t get me wrong we respect what he has to teach us but in the end whatever he said about Limbo comes down to his personal opinion. We are free to agree or disagree.

Here are two articles on the topic. ONE & TWO.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

I don’t disagree with this and wouldn’t try to argue against it, however it would leave me asking how are we to explain Enoch and Elijah going to heaven prior to the coming of Christ?

Simple. They looked (believed) forward as we look backward, to Calvary. Was there not a promise given at the garden and with continued revelation on that up to Elijah ( of crushing Satan), and even a reconciliation ? They had faith in God, were born again, were born of God in spirit, talked with God etc. just as we do. They were born of water (from mothers womb) and born of God, spiritually. God justified them as he does us, each believing and abiding in the Light provided at the time. Christ is Jehovah, the rock in the wilderness.

“because their sins were forgiven by trusting in the Messiah who was to come (Gen. 5:24; 2 Sam. 12:23; Pss. 16:11; 17:15; 23:6; Eccl. 12:7; Matt. 22:31–32; Luke 16:22; Rom. 4:1–8; Heb. 11:5).”…

Did Jesus Really Descend into Hell?

It is sometimes argued that Christ descended into hell after he died. 650, did not think that it meant that Christ descended into hell, but understood the…

zondervanacademic.com

 

[mcq72]

Last time I checked Bishop Fulton Sheen didn’t declare any doctrines of the Catholic Church. Not sure why you believe his opinions are official Catholic teaching?

Did see this which is strange.

“His spirit descends into Limbo, and His escort is a thief.”… in his book “Way of the Cross”, talking of Jesus descending into hell after dying on Cross.

 

[MT1926]

Simple. They looked (believed) forward as we look backward, to Calvary.

This I agree with, but Glenn stipulate “and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit”. We have no evidence they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Which is why I asked.

Was there not a promise given at the garden and with continued revelation on that up to Elijah ( of crushing Satan), and even a reconciliation ?

Yes but still doesn’t answer the Holy Spirit question.

They had faith in God, were born again, were born of God in spirit, talked with God etc. just as we do.

Disagree please provide the evidence they were born again? Better yet please provide an answer to the question I gave you instead of ignoring my questions to you and jumping in to answer questions on conversations I have with others. No one in the Old Testament was born again. We have no evidence of this other than your conclusion Jesus was chiding Nicodemus. Which makes no sense to anyone but you.

They were born of water (from mothers womb) and born of God, spiritually.

The water spoken of in Jesus water and spirit teaching is not your mothers womb not sure why you would even think that.

God justified them as he does us, each believing and abiding in the Light provided at the time

Your scriptural evidence That God justified them before the coming of Christ?

“His spirit descends into Limbo, and His escort is a thief.”… in his book “Way of the Cross”, talking of Jesus descending into hell after dying on Cross.

Glenn was speaking of the idea some have of unbaptized children going to Limbo. He thought this was a Catholic doctrine which it is not.

We aren’t discussing the Limbo of the Fathers(Sheol) something completely different, which is where the righteous dead awaited the Messiah. And why did they wait? Because they WEREN’T yet born again.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

This I agree with, but Glenn stipulate “and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit”. We have no evidence they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Which is why I asked.

Ok. I read somewhere that everything we
experience in the Holy Ghost OT saints could have also, but in different “amounts”, or only from time to time. Foe example the Pentecost Holy Ghost, that enboldened Peter like never before to preach to 3000 and more, where before he hid, is the same Holy Ghost that enabled Samson to do some of his physical feats…i mean I believe it says, “the Holy Ghost came upon him” or the Spirit came upon him.

The water spoken of in Jesus water and spirit teaching is not your mothers womb not sure why you would even think that.

“And Nicodemus replied,” Born again? What , do I reenter my mother’s womb?"

Jesus then said, “what is born of the flesh is flesh”

What is born of women (water) is flesh, what is born of God is spirit.

We are born of women with original sin, our spirits dead in it.

God revives, quickens our spirit thereafter, referred to as born of God, Born of spirit, Born again.

Jesus juxtaposes the two births crystal clear, like never before (the clarity) in the Nicodemus discourse. I would ask that you at least see the contextual possibility of such a rationale, that is just not mine alone. You don’t however have to agree with it. I can certainly see your rationale, with all the baptizing that was going on by John and the apostles, but that was not for spiritual birth and you know that.

 

[mcq72]

Your scriptural evidence That God justified them before the coming of Christ?

Paul clearly teaches of OT saints being justified by faith followed by their works.

Limbo. He thought this was a Catholic doctrine which it is not.

Agree, not official doctrine, was merely a prevalent belief, for a time, upon which people acted, by baptizing their babies so as not to be separated from them in heaven( in fear of this).

Limbo of the Fathers (Sheol)…
And why did they wait? Because they WEREN’T yet born again.

Ok never saw that about Limbo term for Sheol.

Lol…so the saints could enter into heaven permanently before Jesus, that Jesus would not be the firstfruits from the grave?

Yet Enoch and Elijah were taken, and taken up. But the exception makes the rule here perhaps.

Sorry you seem to think OT saints were spiritually dead, no different than the rich man tormented in hell (gehenna). If you think they were spiritually alive then why would they need to be born in their spirits ?

As far as I recall the CC also teaches that the gates of heaven were not open yet, before Calvary, hence the paradise (Abrahams bosom) waiting place (hell, sheol) where “righteous” saints were waiting for the Lord. Don’t recall an official CC teaching they were in paradise cause they weren’t born again.

How can one be righteous in the flesh for you say they were not born again? Perhaps you are confusing man being good in himself somehow apart from spiritual rebirth. Don’t know your rationale on these OT saints.

 

[Glenn]

Sure I’m good with this [water cleanses and fire purges] as well. But doesn’t this verse also contradict what you stated?

I don’t think this contradicts what I said if you consider both water and fire as symbols. In other words, just as we are not saved by actual fire, we are not saved by actual water. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemas about being born of water and the Spirit, I believe that this Greek idiom can be interpreted as being born of the Spirit “as with water.” In other words, the water is an analogy that refers to the cleansing power of the Spirit. In that same passage, Jesus goes on to say, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit… So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” In other words, just as water cleanses our flesh, the Spirit cleanses our spirits.

I personally have no problems with infant baptism. Those who wait for the child to make their own decision simply want the child to demonstrate his/her own personal faith. In this respect, “believers” baptism is similar to the Catholic confirmation.

I’m not following what you mean by this.

Even though Catholics baptize infants, there is a point at which the child must personally profess their faith through the sacrament of confession or initiation. So both Baptists and Catholics maintain that there is a point (the age of accountability or reason) at which one must confirm his/her own personal faith. Instead of baptizing infants, Baptists dedicate them to the Lord, and to the care of the believing community, and when they reach the age at which they can make their own personal profession, they Baptize them. So all I am saying is that there is a similarity here between believer’s baptism and confirmation.

Last time I checked Bishop Fulton Sheen didn’t declare any doctrines of the Catholic Church. Not sure why you believe his opinions are official Catholic teaching?

Yes, you are correct. Although Augustine also taught this idea of infant Limbo, as well as many other Church Fathers, it is not official Church doctrine. So this has left the Church’s theologians free to debate. But I think it goes to show that the whole question of infants and others who have not been baptized (due either to lack of understanding of opportunity) is one of those areas for which we must be charitable. I don’t think there is some definitive proof text; we must come to our understanding, in good conscience, through our knowledge of God as revealed in the whole Scripture, to our understanding of his love, his justice, his mercy, and his grace.

 

[Glenn]

You said only Christ Baptizes with the Holy Spirit and I pointed to Matthew 28 to show you He told the Apostles to do it for Him in His absence.

Yes, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This is not the same thing as baptizing with the Holy Spirit. We do not send the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son send the Holy Spirit. The Apostles were to represent to the world what Christ does in our hearts. Being born again is a Trinitarian work. The Apostles were essentially to testify to this work, not to effect it themselves.

 

[MT1926]

Ok. I read somewhere

That’s fine. What was their reasoning?

“And Nicodemus replied,” Born again? What , do I reenter my mother’s womb?"

Jesus then said, “what is born of the flesh is flesh”

You skipped a verse

unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

This does not say “unless one is born of water and then born again of the Spirit…” Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit” This is one event. Baptism.

What is born of women (water) is flesh, water is born of God is spirit.

Which version are you using? Born of woman is flesh? It says born of flesh is flesh. This is a contrast between flesh, all that is earthly and human, vs Spirit, all that is supernatural, heavenly and divine.

Why would He say what is born of woman is flesh? Isn’t everyone listening to Him already born and fully aware of this fact? If He was speaking of natural birth their was no reason to bring it up because there is no other way to be born.

Go back to

John 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Notice here John refers to natural birth as being born of blood not of water.

Add this to all of John’s other writings and other Biblical texts water here in context cannot mean anything else other than Baptism.

We are born of women with original sin, our spirits dead in it.

Agreed

God revives, quickens our spirit thereafter, referred to as born of God, Born of spirit, Born again.

Yes He does it’s through Baptism

I would ask that you at least see the contextual possibility of such a rationale, that is just not mine alone.

Sorry when I read it in context of the entire Gospel of John I cannot see how anyone comes to the conclusion that water here means born of woman. There is just way to much to read into the text and way to many other verses of scripture to ignore to come to this conclusion.

I can certainly see your rationale, with all the baptizing that was going on by John and the apostles, but that was not for spiritual birth and you know that.

Totally agree. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. However Jesus took something old and made it into a Sacrament an outward sign that gives us grace.

Think about Jesus ministry. Read about His physical cures.

He used outwards signs to perform a deeper more lasting spiritual healing.

Notice he used physical means. Mud, spittle, spoken words, and eye contact…… WHY?
Because he knows as human beings we learn through our senses. So he brought it down to our level because He knows we learn through our senses. That’s why He gave us Baptism, not because He couldn’t do it any other way but to appeal to our humanity.

God Bless

 

[Gabika50]

Your question: Infallibility of church? Answer: No, infallibility of God!!!

 

[Glenn]

Yes and He handed this authority to the Apostles Matthew 28.

The question for Protestants is not whether the Church has authority, but whether that authority is infallible.

Yes I am well aware of this but am scratching my head why this is the response to what I said? I never once brought up the Church.

Correct, you did not bring up the Church. But you brought up the fact that Christ handed authority over to the Apostles. I was merely commenting on the fact (according to Protestants) that the authority Christ bequeathed to the Apostles was not in turn bequeathed to the entire Church. No one, since the Apostles (again, according to a Protestant understanding), speaks with the authority of Christ. Thus, we cannot (as Protestants) apply what Christ does in our hearts to Church itself.

 

[MT1926]

OT saints being justified

Well I don’t know where to go with this because you still haven’t given me a definition of being born again. Which was what my question was asking.

So are you saying when someone is justified is when they are born again?

baptizing their babies so as not to be separated from them in heaven( in fear of this).

Nope sorry, you believed something you read without checking the facts again. Early Christians Baptized babies for about 1000 years before Limbo came on the scene. I’m pretty sure the term limbo wasn’t even used until about 1200. Here’s an article if you so desire.

Lol…so the saints could enter into heaven permanently before Jesus

Why do you think we believe Sheol is heaven?

Yet Enoch and Elijah were taken, and taken up. But the exception makes the rule here perhaps.

Yes God took them but the Scriptures are silent where He took them to. It would be an assumption to believe as you say above that they entered heaven permanently before Jesus.

no different than the rich man tormented in hell (gehenna).

I believe this parable shows us where the righteous awaiting the Messiah (Limbo of the Fathers, Sheol, Abraham’s bosom) whatever you want to call it.

If you think they were spiritually alive then why would they need to be born in their spirits ?

The Scriptures tell us they were righteous in God’s eyes because of their deeds. To me this does not equate to one being spiritually born again. Once again not sure your definition of born again. No offense, but can see no other reason why someone would be unwilling to share unless they don’t have a firm definition

CC also teaches gates of heaven were not open yet

Agree still not seeing what said that made you think differently?

where “righteous” saints were waiting for the Lord.

Agreed righteous, not the same as born again

in paradise cause they weren’t born again.

We don’t believe paradise and heaven are the same. Jesus says TODAY you will be with me in paradise. We both agree that Jesus did not go to heaven that day. Thus the reason I don’t believe Paradise and Heaven are the same place.

righteous in the flesh for you say they were not born again?

They were righteous in God’s eyes because of their deeds, not born again. They did not have God’s grace, which is the reason they couldn’t enter heaven.

Don’t know your rationale

That’s because you believed what someone told you Catholics believe instead of reading the Catechism and finding out for yourself what we really believe.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

That’s fine. What was their reasoning?

There reasoning ( that the Spirits work in OT foreshadowed NT, by actually doing similar “dispensing” , for lack of a better word).

No reasoning save that it is in scripture, these dispensings, like the Samson story. The article cited more examples of the Spirit working in and thru man in OT. Would have to dig up more examples. Only other one that comes to mind is David’s plea to have God create a clean heart,

“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.”

This does not say “unless one is born of water and then born again of the Spirit…” Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit” This is one event. Baptism.

Who says it is one event? It is a linguistic choice as to how to see this “and”. I mean you most certainly can not not be born of the spirit till you are born of the flesh, of a woman, of water. You say how stupid, for this is understood, and I agree . But it is Nicodemus that opens the door to such humor even, by saying “shall i renter my mothers womb?”. I feel Jesus in his graciousness does not reply calling him stupid, but goes along with his stupid challenge and pretty much says no, Nicodemus, you only do this once, being born of flesh (water), but thereafter you must be born in your spirit…you are not born of your mother spiritually alive.

You rebuttal by saying John earlier calls our first birth born of “blood”. Yes but John says it also born of flesh, born of the will of man. Why do you disallow Jesus now to add a fourth descriptor of the same event? We do the same thing when teaching, giving many descriptors for same thing. When John uses “blood”, not sure he speaks of actual birth process that can be bloody but uses the word as referring to man, to blood relations. Jesus however refers to actual birth process, but only because Nicodemus draws such a graphic picture in our minds of reentering the womb…So don’t think your “blood” rebuttal stands.

As I said, I understand other rationales on the “water”. It can be both and and not either or ( which you nicely stated in a post about baptism, and could be said about eucharist, both a symbol and a reality).

I believe Jesus created language and is its Master, and His words are precise yet multi faceted ( not easy to do). Such that water can mean several things to several people at the same time. So for example the other meaning I have heard is that it refers to the Word of God, and certainly the Word washes, and heals, revives, is glorious.

But baptism waters at the time also “washed”, prepared to support your rationale. Just that the other part, born of the spirit, doesn’t fit. We all admit the baptisms at the time were preparatory, not regenerational. Are you saying born again was a future operation, after Pentecost? Or is born again the indwelling of the Spirit, after Resurrection (Jesus breathed on the apostles )? If so, doesn’t answer the question as to why Nicodemus didn’t believe and others did , at the time of discourse.(I have said he didn’t believe cause he wasn’t born again, others were).

 

[mcq72]

Sorry when I read it in context of the entire Gospel of John I cannot see how anyone comes to the conclusion that water here means born of woman. There is just way to much to read into the text and way to many other verses of scripture to ignore to come to this conclusion.

And I feel you are reading Nicodemus text as if it occurred after Calvary and the Resurection and not before. John 3 is not John 19 or 20.