S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Ok Pax, Why would Jesus say in the next vs.John3;6. Flesh begets flesh and spirit begets spirit? I have a teachable spirit.
- Status
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
In my oppinion I believe there was two baptisms. One of repentence[water] and baptism of the Holy Spirit. There are many examples of baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism. There are also examples of water baptism without baptism of the Holy Spirit. But the Truth is we need both to be born again.
B
bhanifan
Guest
I believe you are mistaking forms of ordination and confirmation for baptism of the Holy Spirit. Yes the persons being ordained or confirmed are infused with the Holy Spirit, but this is a different thing altogether from the Baptism of Jesus Christ.In my oppinion I believe there was two baptisms. One of repentence[water] and baptism of the Holy Spirit. There are many examples of baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism. There are also examples of water baptism without baptism of the Holy Spirit. But the Truth is we need both to be born again.
K
Katholikos
Guest
Here’s how St. Justin Martyr explained it to the Roman Emperor in 155 A.D.: "Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again in the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were born again, for they receive washing in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.’ "I do believe that we do have to repent Johns baptism] of our sins and then recieve the Spirit of God to be born again. Yes water and spirit
Justin continued: “We have learned from the Apostles this reason for this [rite].”
The Protestant interpretation of “born again” was unknown before the 16th century.
St. Justin Martyr, pray for us!
JMJ Jay
(Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!)
Source: Ancient Christian Writers, translated by Leslie William Barnard, Paulist Press, Volume 56, p. 66
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Almost. There is only ONE baptism (Eph 4:5) and the holy Spirit is received in water baptism (Acts 2:38). One isn’t baptised in water and “then” receives baptism of the holy Spirit, as though there were two baptism. God’s word tells us there is only one therefore we can know that at the moment one is baptised in water one is baptised in the holy Spirit. Water baptism does what it symbolizes.Nancy, True, after repentence and water baptism,then you will recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
In Christ,
Nancy
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
My question to you would be why didin’t the early Christians understand John 3:6 to mean the same thing you understand it to mean? Who’s more likely to have it right; those who lived within a few generations of the apostles (who also had teachable spirits) or you, 2000 years removed?Ok Pax, Why would Jesus say in the next vs.[John3;6. Flesh begets flesh and spirit begets spirit? I have a teachable spirit.
All believers believe that they have teachable spirits, yet conflicting and contradictory interpretations of scripture abound which means that error also abounds. Having a teachable spirit doesn’t guarantee an accurate understanding of scripture.
In Christ,
Nancy
[/quote]
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Amen! One born again through water baptism (Romans 6:3-4).In my oppinion I believe there was two baptisms. One of repentence[water] and baptism of the Holy Spirit. There are many examples of baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism. There are also examples of water baptism without baptism of the Holy Spirit. But the Truth is we need both to be born again.
According to God’s word there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5). Personal opinions can be in error, even unbeknowst to the opinion holder. That’s why the Church is the upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) rather than the individual believer.
In Christ,
Nancy
P
Philthy
Guest
Nancy, et al:
Excellent post - I had this debate with “Ozzie” whom you may recall from the “I’m a confused Protestant and I want an honest answer” thread.
I first heard this “born of water = natural birth” argument from a Protestant Pastor whom I know and respect. It was within the context of my “defending” having my daughter Grace baptized at 3 weeks of age. I thought it was a fairly forced interpretation at the time but didn’t have a good refutation. I have always thought that if that term didn’t appear elsewhere in the bible referring to childbirth then that substantially reduces the likelihood of that interpretation representing reality, but I simply did not know.
The problem in this situation is that the interpretation of it meaning childbirth isn’t entirely illogical. The discourse starts with Nicodemus acknowledging our Lord and Jesus responding, “…no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. Here some translations (NAB) give “born from above”. In Greek, athenos can mean again or from above. Jesus means “from above”, but Nicodemus thinks he means “again”. This is where the entire dialogue comes from - the confusion. So Nicodemus goes on to reveal his confusion by saying how can someone be “re-born” - does he have to get back into his mother’s womb?!Christ goes on to say, “…no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the holy Spirit.” Now it could be argued that he is explaining that he doesn’t mean “again”, but rather that he meant “from above” and he uses this phraseology to emphasize the differences between a physical birth and a spiritual one. The biggest problem with this interpretation is that the phrase is no where else to be found! “Born of woman” is the more common expression as Pax pointed out. Christ does go on to say in the very next verse, " Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” again seeming to parallel the “born of water and the holy Spirit” in an attempt to clarify. So I can understand where this interpretation comes from intellectually - but that doesn’t mean it’s right! Katholikos gives an excellent pointer in drawing attention to Titus 3:5 - a powerful refutation to the born of water = born of flesh interpretation. As does Pax pointing out the continuing relevance of baptism in the discussion that follows. Context, Context, Context. I also feel that in the discussion Christ would technically have been redundant to say that a person needs to be “born of the flesh” since it’s a given that we are all born in the flesh. He could have simply stated that unless you’re born of the Spirit you won’t see the Kingdom of God and meant the very same thing. I readily admit, however, that my argument (of redundancy)is, by far, the weakest and that is why I am so grateful to you all for your contributions! :clapping: These points combined with the ECFs seems to swing the pendulum in favor of the Catholic position. For the record, I’d stick by the Church even if it didn’t “intellectually” add up - humility is appealing to me…
Phil.
Excellent post
- I had this debate with “Ozzie” whom you may recall from the “I’m a confused Protestant and I want an honest answer” thread.I first heard this “born of water = natural birth” argument from a Protestant Pastor whom I know and respect. It was within the context of my “defending” having my daughter Grace baptized at 3 weeks of age. I thought it was a fairly forced interpretation at the time but didn’t have a good refutation. I have always thought that if that term didn’t appear elsewhere in the bible referring to childbirth then that substantially reduces the likelihood of that interpretation representing reality, but I simply did not know.
The problem in this situation is that the interpretation of it meaning childbirth isn’t entirely illogical. The discourse starts with Nicodemus acknowledging our Lord and Jesus responding, “…no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. Here some translations (NAB) give “born from above”. In Greek, athenos can mean again or from above. Jesus means “from above”, but Nicodemus thinks he means “again”. This is where the entire dialogue comes from - the confusion. So Nicodemus goes on to reveal his confusion by saying how can someone be “re-born” - does he have to get back into his mother’s womb?!Christ goes on to say, “…no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the holy Spirit.” Now it could be argued that he is explaining that he doesn’t mean “again”, but rather that he meant “from above” and he uses this phraseology to emphasize the differences between a physical birth and a spiritual one. The biggest problem with this interpretation is that the phrase is no where else to be found! “Born of woman” is the more common expression as Pax pointed out. Christ does go on to say in the very next verse, " Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” again seeming to parallel the “born of water and the holy Spirit” in an attempt to clarify. So I can understand where this interpretation comes from intellectually - but that doesn’t mean it’s right! Katholikos gives an excellent pointer in drawing attention to Titus 3:5 - a powerful refutation to the born of water = born of flesh interpretation. As does Pax pointing out the continuing relevance of baptism in the discussion that follows. Context, Context, Context. I also feel that in the discussion Christ would technically have been redundant to say that a person needs to be “born of the flesh” since it’s a given that we are all born in the flesh. He could have simply stated that unless you’re born of the Spirit you won’t see the Kingdom of God and meant the very same thing. I readily admit, however, that my argument (of redundancy)is, by far, the weakest and that is why I am so grateful to you all for your contributions! :clapping: These points combined with the ECFs seems to swing the pendulum in favor of the Catholic position. For the record, I’d stick by the Church even if it didn’t “intellectually” add up - humility is appealing to me…
Phil.
N
Northwind
Guest
Here is a monkey thrown into the wrench consider this… Nicodemus is talking with Jesus. This isn’t really a normal conversation we see in the gospels. Nic isn’t some fisherman who just fell off the boat, he is a Pharisee, someone very well educated in the O.T…course it wasn’t the O.T when he read it…you know what I mean. So, Jesus doesn’t treat him like an uneducated person, He goes right to the heart of the matter…“you must be born again” and “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven…”
We can see that he just isn’t getting it because he talks about “being born when one is old…” and “He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” And one more time Nic says “How can these things be?”
This is where it gets interesting
Jesus sort of rebukes him here…
John 3:10
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?
There are two main points to ponder here…one from the text and one from the greek…you may or may not agree with me, but i’m offering it just as a ‘what if’…to me, it does make a lot of sense and it fits the context i think better…
The Holy Spirit in the O.T. has a number of synonyms. One of which is water! Jer 17:13 is a very good example.
Jer 17:13
13 O LORD, the hope of Israel,
All who forsake Thee will be put to shame.
Those who turn away on earth will be written down,
Because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the LORD.(emphasis mine)
Interestingly enough Jesus reveals the fountain of living water in John 7…
John 7:37-39
38 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.(mine again)
As a “teacher of Israel” Nicodemus at least should have been familiar with the terminology. He didn’t have our revelation and our N.T. but this is what Jesus was explaining to him…water = Spirit.
This is why Jesus complained “you are a teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” As educated as Nicodemus was, he should have at least known the symbolism, and didn’t.
So, the first point is that Jesus is trying to tell Nicodemus that being born of ‘water and the Spirit’ are one in the same. My post is too long so I’m splitting it…here
consider this… Nicodemus is talking with Jesus. This isn’t really a normal conversation we see in the gospels. Nic isn’t some fisherman who just fell off the boat, he is a Pharisee, someone very well educated in the O.T…course it wasn’t the O.T when he read it…you know what I mean. So, Jesus doesn’t treat him like an uneducated person, He goes right to the heart of the matter…“you must be born again” and “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven…”We can see that he just isn’t getting it because he talks about “being born when one is old…” and “He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” And one more time Nic says “How can these things be?”
This is where it gets interesting
Jesus sort of rebukes him here…
John 3:10
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?
There are two main points to ponder here…one from the text and one from the greek…you may or may not agree with me, but i’m offering it just as a ‘what if’…to me, it does make a lot of sense and it fits the context i think better…
The Holy Spirit in the O.T. has a number of synonyms. One of which is water! Jer 17:13 is a very good example.
Jer 17:13
13 O LORD, the hope of Israel,
All who forsake Thee will be put to shame.
Those who turn away on earth will be written down,
Because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the LORD.(emphasis mine)
Interestingly enough Jesus reveals the fountain of living water in John 7…
John 7:37-39
38 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.(mine again)
As a “teacher of Israel” Nicodemus at least should have been familiar with the terminology. He didn’t have our revelation and our N.T. but this is what Jesus was explaining to him…water = Spirit.
This is why Jesus complained “you are a teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” As educated as Nicodemus was, he should have at least known the symbolism, and didn’t.
So, the first point is that Jesus is trying to tell Nicodemus that being born of ‘water and the Spirit’ are one in the same. My post is too long so I’m splitting it…here
N
Northwind
Guest
2nd part of post…
The 2nd point is this. In greek grammar there is a rule known as Granville Sharp’s rule. It’s long and gets real complicated. I’d be happy to post a link for a detailed explaination if you’d like. Here is the dumbed down version…dumbed down for me…not you
Basically Sharp set forth four rules in the greek that had to do with the definate article and its use. The first came to be known as Sharp’s rule. Basically it says this. That if you have a construction in the greek where you have two nouns, the first is preceded by the definate article and the 2nd isn’t…then the 2nd noun is a further description of the first. Again, this is way striped of all the techie greek talk…A verse that fits this category is Titus 2:13 which talks about …
Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;
Here, some will say (JW’s) that there are two people/individuals being talked about here…our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
Sharp’s rule says no, ‘savior’ is a further description of ‘our great God’! So, there is only one person being referenced here, Jesus, who is our great God and Savior. He takes it one step further. He says you can take the word ‘and’ and replace it with ‘even’ w/o corrupting the integrity of the text, so we have…
“…our great God even Savior, Christ Jesus.”
If we apply this to Jn 3:5 we have…
“unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven…”
Sharp’s rule says that ‘Spirit’ is a further description of ‘water’ and that if we replace the word ‘and’ with ‘even’ we see…
“unless one is born of water even the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven…”
Jesus is speaking of being born from above, by the Holy Spirit…this gets a whole lot deeper and maybe someone will open a thread…who knows. This is about all i can do off the top of my head…there is a bit more to the whole scenerio…I’ve seen the references to Acts 2…and i have a small problem with that too…but thats for a later time. enjoy. i’ll be back tomorrow or this weekend… have a nice night
The 2nd point is this. In greek grammar there is a rule known as Granville Sharp’s rule. It’s long and gets real complicated. I’d be happy to post a link for a detailed explaination if you’d like. Here is the dumbed down version…dumbed down for me…not you
Basically Sharp set forth four rules in the greek that had to do with the definate article and its use. The first came to be known as Sharp’s rule. Basically it says this. That if you have a construction in the greek where you have two nouns, the first is preceded by the definate article and the 2nd isn’t…then the 2nd noun is a further description of the first. Again, this is way striped of all the techie greek talk…A verse that fits this category is Titus 2:13 which talks about …
Titus 2:13
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;
Here, some will say (JW’s) that there are two people/individuals being talked about here…our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
Sharp’s rule says no, ‘savior’ is a further description of ‘our great God’! So, there is only one person being referenced here, Jesus, who is our great God and Savior. He takes it one step further. He says you can take the word ‘and’ and replace it with ‘even’ w/o corrupting the integrity of the text, so we have…
“…our great God even Savior, Christ Jesus.”
If we apply this to Jn 3:5 we have…
“unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven…”
Sharp’s rule says that ‘Spirit’ is a further description of ‘water’ and that if we replace the word ‘and’ with ‘even’ we see…
“unless one is born of water even the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven…”
Jesus is speaking of being born from above, by the Holy Spirit…this gets a whole lot deeper and maybe someone will open a thread…who knows. This is about all i can do off the top of my head…there is a bit more to the whole scenerio…I’ve seen the references to Acts 2…and i have a small problem with that too…but thats for a later time. enjoy. i’ll be back tomorrow or this weekend… have a nice night
P
Pax
Guest
SPOKENWORD,Ok Pax, Why would Jesus say in the next vs.[John3;6. Flesh begets flesh and spirit begets spirit? I have a teachable spirit.
I think we need to take John 3:3-7 in total to appreciate your question. These verses read as follows:
John3:3-7
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus 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?” Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, 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 anew.’
Note that the statement “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” is probably a simple way of saying that we are born from Adam and have a fallen nature and all those that we beget also inherit a fallen nature. The legacy of Adam is that we are born in unbelief and disobedience. We are not born in the state of grace and we do not have the Holy Spirit within us.
The second birth in baptism is to be born anew and to be born of the spirit. When Jesus was baptized by John we are given a sign of what will happen in our own baptism. Even though Jesus did not need to be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit as we do, He nevertheless, allowed Himself to be baptized and the Holy Spirit then descended upon Him in the form of a dove. Immediately thereafter there was a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [Matt 3:16-17] This shows us that we will receive the Holy Spirit and become adopted sons and daughters
Just as Jesus was baptized and received the Holy Spirit, so also we are baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. We, however, have original sin and possibly personal sin and these are washed away as indicated in other scriptures of the NT. The baptism of repentance performed by John is thus replaced and made better in the New Covenant. This is made clearer by Acts 19:1-7 where we read, "WHILE APOLLOS was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.
I hope this answers your question.
[/quote]
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Thanks Pax. Water and Spirit. Two parts,.one Spirit. Washing and sealing of the Spirit. Although our bodys are over 50% water as we saw when Jesus was lanced at the cross. Water and blood came out. So we are saved by water and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
M
MariaG
Guest
Maybe I missed someone else addressing this point, but I wanted to address the repent and be baptised. For adults this would be true. The NT is concerned with mostly adult converts.
However, babies can receive baptism and be saved also. They have no personal sin, but baptism does remove the stain of original sin. Once they have reached the age of reason, they must choose to continue walking in grace, but an infant can be born again through baptism also.
Baptism is more than an expression of a person’s choice to follow Christ. It is a miracle from God that cleanses us from the stain of oringinal sin and any personal sin. Infants and children may not have personal sin, but they do have oringinal sin. Keep not the little children from Me…
You may disagree, but it is consistent with the Bible and Catholic theology.
God Bless,
Maria
However, babies can receive baptism and be saved also. They have no personal sin, but baptism does remove the stain of original sin. Once they have reached the age of reason, they must choose to continue walking in grace, but an infant can be born again through baptism also.
Baptism is more than an expression of a person’s choice to follow Christ. It is a miracle from God that cleanses us from the stain of oringinal sin and any personal sin. Infants and children may not have personal sin, but they do have oringinal sin. Keep not the little children from Me…
You may disagree, but it is consistent with the Bible and Catholic theology.
God Bless,
Maria
P
Pax
Guest
God as creator loves matter. Jesus in His ministry shows this truth by connecting material things with spiritual power and grace. Jesus heals the blind man by spitting on soil and making a small amount of clay to place on the blind mans eyes. He then tells the blind man to go to the pool at Siloam to wash. It is then the that the blind man sees. These signs are extended into the New Covenant. Connections between a material sign and a spiritual reality are what we call sacraments which are covenant oaths. Baptism is the covenant oath of faith for the forgiveness of our sins and for receiving the Holy Spirit.
M
MarkPerz
Guest
One thing we can do to test the “logic” (or lack of logic) is to reword Jesus’ statement (using the meaning of water being amniotic fluid), and put it in the form of a negative statement.
If “being born of water” refers to amniotic fluid, or being born from your mother’s womb, then we can infer that Jesus is saying “If your mother never gave birth to you, you cannot be born again.”
Makes sense, but why would he say something like that?
…things that make you go ‘hmmmmmmm?’
If “being born of water” refers to amniotic fluid, or being born from your mother’s womb, then we can infer that Jesus is saying “If your mother never gave birth to you, you cannot be born again.”
Makes sense, but why would he say something like that?
…things that make you go ‘hmmmmmmm?’
- Status