John 3

[RedDeathsMask]

I have seen plenty of Catholic Apologetics on baptism regeneration in John chapter 3. Many non-Catholics have interpreted the water mentioned in it as birth fluid. I have read enough articles to show this isn’t the case. But I have seen non-Catholics refer to the water as being a metaphor for “the word” basically crossing to the metaphor of the life giving water when Jesus was speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well. I haven’t seen any apologetic articles about this other interpretation, how can this be refuted?

 

[I_Leatherman]

Would the ‘living water’ from the well story be the life giving Holy Spirit, the Living love between the Father and the Son.

Unless you are baptised by water and the Holy Spirit… might read
Unless you are baptised by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit…
Which would be an unnecessary repetition.

Just a thought…

 

[Northwind]

There is a rule in Greek grammar called Granville Sharp’s rule. Where it would allow the verse to read almost as it is above here. “you must be born of water even the Spirit…”

Spirit is a further description of water. Hope this helps…

 

[RedDeathsMask]

Thank you all! That was very helpful, I don’t see too many Non-Catholic Christians who do not believe in baptismal regeneration use that interpretation. In fact, I have only stumbled across it once.

 

[Malachi4U]

Since Jn 3 states Baptism is ‘symbolic’ only and many Protestants do not believe in or condone symbolic gestures like statues or signs of the cross, etc., why even Baptize? They appear to violate their own logic? What is now symbolic in Scripture and what is not? Who decides? Did Jesus really die on the cross or is that just ‘symbolic’ too? The virgin birth is only ‘symbolic’?

Protestants have to take Jn 3 as symbolic or it proves their opinions and invented by man theology wrong.

JMJ