Question for Protestants: How do you interpret John 3: 4-5?

[Belinda_Parsons]

How do you interpret John 3: 4-5?

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Thanks!

 

[bibleman47]

Depends on which protestant you ask. For most, it’s the water of natural birth, and “baptism in the holy spirit”, but when I asked how a person with a c-section type birth could be “born of the water” I usually get “well that wasn’t around then” mentality. But if God’s Word is real, then He’d have known about it. So I went looking again, and came across the United Pentocostal Church, a Oneness (non-Trinitarian) pentecostal group who explicitly stat that baptism is not only necessary for salvation, but without it you WILL NOT BE SAVED, an d this particular verse is one of many that are qouted. I am no longer associated with them, I am a protestant in the Baptist church, but I see that baptisd is essential and required for salvation. There are many answers, and the protestant inability to appeal ot a higher “court” so to speak, as we say, scripture alone, often crerates for us many a taxing answer on the intelligence of others. To simply state that this is the “natural birth” is to beg the question, didn’t Nicedemus already state that?
Hope this helps.
Bibleman47

 

[jemfinch]

Depends on which protestant you ask. For most, it’s the water of natural birth, and “baptism in the holy spirit”, but when I asked how a person with a c-section type birth could be “born of the water” I usually get “well that wasn’t around then” mentality.

You know what also wasn’t around then? The idiom that “born of water” referred to natural birth. It simply didn’t exist in the Greek vernacular, and it’s anachronistic to attempt to apply it to argue against the traditional Christian understanding of baptism.

Jeremy

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I am a protestant in the Baptist church, but I see that baptisd is essential and required for salvation.

Is this in accordance with baptist teaching? It would be my understanding that Baptists would usually interpret the verse how you first explained it. Have you ever had anyone in your Church ask you about this? Do they know you believe this about this baptism?

God bless

 

[VociMike]

Depends on which protestant you ask. For most, it’s the water of natural birth, and “baptism in the holy spirit”, but when I asked how a person with a c-section type birth could be “born of the water” I usually get “well that wasn’t around then” mentality. But if God’s Word is real, then He’d have known about it. So I went looking again, and came across the United Pentocostal Church, a Oneness (non-Trinitarian) pentecostal group who explicitly stat that baptism is not only necessary for salvation, but without it you WILL NOT BE SAVED, an d this particular verse is one of many that are qouted. I am no longer associated with them, I am a protestant in the Baptist church, but I see that baptisd is essential and required for salvation. There are many answers, and the protestant inability to appeal ot a higher “court” so to speak, as we say, scripture alone, often crerates for us many a taxing answer on the intelligence of others. To simply state that this is the “natural birth” is to beg the question, didn’t Nicedemus already state that?
Hope this helps.
Bibleman47

Hi Bibleman, and welcome, and thanks for your comments.

I’m glad you don’t go with the “water of natural birth” view, since that is really an odd view. It says that Jesus thought it was necessary to clarify, when asked how one could be saved, that one must first be born. Well, that would comprise his entire audience, and the entire audience of the bible, right? It’s about like saying, well first you have to exist. But in talking to others we generally take that part for granted. When I look up the requirements for a driver’s license, it doesn’t say I have to have been born - guess that part is a given.

But what’s really disturbing about that is it seems to suggest that those babies who die (naturally or as the result of intent) in the womb cannot be saved, because they were never born of water. And I don’t think very many Christians believe that.

 

[Belinda_Parsons]

Is this in accordance with baptist teaching? It would be my understanding that Baptists would usually interpret the verse how you first explained it. Have you ever had anyone in your Church ask you about this? Do they know you believe this about this baptism?

God bless

That was my question too. I was thinking that Baptist in particular didn’t believe baptism was necessary for salvation, but then again, what do I know?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I’m not arguing for the protestant position, but I want to clarify what I think is a misunderstanding about one of these protestant interpretations.

At one time (when I left the CC) I would have said born of water meant simply, being born (naturally). Not meaning a “natural child-birth” (vs c-section), but no matter how one is brought into the world from the womb, the fact is that the baby is immersed in water in the womb. It’s almost like saying “born of woman” or “mankind” or “born with human nature”. Contrast this with being born “of the spirit”. So when Jesus says “not…without being born of water and Spirit” its not like he is saying: “step 1 is to be born”. It was nicodemus who brought up entering one’s mother’s womb again. Jesus is answering to that by saying, essentially, that you won’t enter heaven by simply being born of your mother’s womb, but by being born of the Spirit.

I realize this probably doesn’t make much sense, but it is how I would have explained it.

 

[VociMike]

I’m not arguing for the protestant position, but I want to clarify what I think is a misunderstanding about one of these protestant interpretations.

At one time (when I left the CC) I would have said born of water meant simply, being born (naturally). Not meaning a “natural child-birth” (vs c-section), but no matter how one is brought into the world from the womb, the fact is that the baby is immersed in water in the womb. It’s almost like saying “born of woman” or “mankind” or “born with human nature”. Contrast this with being born “of the spirit”. So when Jesus says “not…without being born of water and Spirit” its not like he is saying: “step 1 is to be born”. It was nicodemus who brought up entering one’s mother’s womb again. Jesus is answering to that by saying, essentially, that you won’t enter heaven by simply being born of your mother’s womb, but by being born of the Spirit.

I realize this probably doesn’t make much sense, but it is how I would have explained it.

OK, fair enough, but does that really make the problem with that interpretation go away? When asked “how can I be saved” did Jesus really feel the need to point out that first you need to be a human being? Again, who else is Jesus talking too and about, if not human beings? See, I don’t think it makes that particular understanding any more sensible.

 

[kobudodave]

I’m not arguing for the protestant position, but I want to clarify what I think is a misunderstanding about one of these protestant interpretations.

At one time (when I left the CC) I would have said born of water meant simply, being born (naturally). Not meaning a “natural child-birth” (vs c-section), but no matter how one is brought into the world from the womb, the fact is that the baby is immersed in water in the womb. It’s almost like saying “born of woman” or “mankind” or “born with human nature”. Contrast this with being born “of the spirit”. So when Jesus says “not…without being born of water and Spirit” its not like he is saying: “step 1 is to be born”. It was nicodemus who brought up entering one’s mother’s womb again. Jesus is answering to that by saying, essentially, that you won’t enter heaven by simply being born of your mother’s womb, but by being born of the Spirit.

I realize this probably doesn’t make much sense, but it is how I would have explained it.

The problems with this are, for one, that the early Church understood that it meant baptism by water. This is evident by the Didache as well as the Early Church Fathers. Second, taken in the context of the conversation, Jesus says in verse 3, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born from above." He is not talking about being born in the womb. There is no way you can gather that from this context. He is talking about being born from above, born of the Spirit, through which it is understood in the Early Church to be through baptism.

Also, it is talking about being born again. Nicodemus understood some of what Jesus said. But Nicodemus could not grasp how it could be that you be born again, once already born. It would have been taken for granted that you were already born, and thus no reason to say that you would NEED to be born, if that has already happened. The conversation would have been unnecessary put in the context that he was talking about “natural birth”.

 

[Dan-Man916]

How do you interpret John 3: 4-5?

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Thanks!

Perhaps the question should also be asked, what did this verse mean to the Christians to whom it was written in the 1st century, and in what way did they interpret it to mean, and in what way has it been interpreted differently from those and why.

 

[bibleman47]

Hello all, forgive me the delay, I have been gone from my work, I am a Manager at a Pizza Hut, for a week as my father has cancer and went to go see him in Los Angeles CA, I live in San Antonio TX, and I worked most of the day, and that’s why I did not reply sooner.
No it is not accepted Baptist teaching on the nature of being “born again”.To be saved one says a sinners prayer of repentance and acceptance of Christ as your personal savior. Nowhere in Scripture can this be found, it was only when Charles Finney in the mid 19th cent. started his revival meetings and giant alter calls came into practice did this method of “salvation” come into being. Prior to this, the Reformers had ther individual examine his/her life, heart, emotions. mind and outlook to see if the person was “saved”, not “accepting” Christ, but if your heart knew that Christ accepted you. Sadly, many of the Baptist teachings today are simply traditions and what I call doctrinal history, believing something because your forefathers believed it.
My membership in this baptist church is new, and I have been a pastor before, so I teach in this one also, but have not as yet broached this subject. It will cause trouble in the church, any church I go to it does. Why have I not joined the Catholic Church you may ask, well, I’m maried to an ex-Catholic lady who’s divorced, and as she doesn’t recognize the churchs authority anymore, will not go through the anullment process, and I was told by a Jesuit that I could not join because of this. I understand the “no divorce” doctrine of the Church. I really have no intention of disturbing my marriage by trying to get her to do something she has much opposition to, apparently there is a lot of painful issues about her ex-husband that would be brought up.
Anyway, I am glad that people don’t look at my answer like it’s an oddball one. We Baptists do not ascribe to any “creed”, even truthful ones, but there is a corpus of accepted beliefs and if you are not found with them, then you are a “heretic”. I realize this sounds like much of what Protestants say about Catholis, you know, not using the bible alone, but to be honest, no one does. Any doctrine that doesn’t fit into their accepted mode of interpretation will be given the “He really meant to say this…”
Blessings.
Bibleman47

 

[Belinda_Parsons]

Hello all, forgive me the delay, I have been gone from my work, I am a Manager at a Pizza Hut, for a week as my father has cancer and went to go see him in Los Angeles CA, I live in San Antonio TX, and I worked most of the day, and that’s why I did not reply sooner.
No it is not accepted Baptist teaching on the nature of being “born again”.To be saved one says a sinners prayer of repentance and acceptance of Christ as your personal savior. Nowhere in Scripture can this be found, it was only when Charles Finney in the mid 19th cent. started his revival meetings and giant alter calls came into practice did this method of “salvation” come into being. Prior to this, the Reformers had ther individual examine his/her life, heart, emotions. mind and outlook to see if the person was “saved”, not “accepting” Christ, but if your heart knew that Christ accepted you. Sadly, many of the Baptist teachings today are simply traditions and what I call doctrinal history, believing something because your forefathers believed it.
My membership in this baptist church is new, and I have been a pastor before, so I teach in this one also, but have not as yet broached this subject. It will cause trouble in the church, any church I go to it does. Why have I not joined the Catholic Church you may ask, well, I’m maried to an ex-Catholic lady who’s divorced, and as she doesn’t recognize the churchs authority anymore, will not go through the anullment process, and I was told by a Jesuit that I could not join because of this. I understand the “no divorce” doctrine of the Church. I really have no intention of disturbing my marriage by trying to get her to do something she has much opposition to, apparently there is a lot of painful issues about her ex-husband that would be brought up.
Anyway, I am glad that people don’t look at my answer like it’s an oddball one. We Baptists do not ascribe to any “creed”, even truthful ones, but there is a corpus of accepted beliefs and if you are not found with them, then you are a “heretic”. I realize this sounds like much of what Protestants say about Catholis, you know, not using the bible alone, but to be honest, no one does. Any doctrine that doesn’t fit into their accepted mode of interpretation will be given the “He really meant to say this…”
Blessings.
Bibleman47

No need for an apology and may God Bless you and your family. We will pray for your father.

Thanks for the insight, I know our very good baptist friends believe in accepting Christ and that’s it and that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

 

[allischalmers]

No need for an apology and may God Bless you and your family. We will pray for your father.

Thanks for the insight, I know our very good baptist friends believe in accepting Christ and that’s it and that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Not all Baptist believe in the sinners prayer thing and accepting or recieving Jesus Christ as personal savior even though in the first chapter of John it says "But as many as have recieved Him (Jesus) to them give he the power to become the Sons of God, even to them that beleive on his name.

No pastor that I have ever had give a altar come or told people that they were save be them recieving Jesus as a personal savior

 

[bibleman47]

Perhaps I’m mistaken. I’ve been a baptist for 13 years, with the vacation of about 2 years in the United Penetcostal Church, I’ve dealt with only Southern Baptists and Fundemental Baptists, and as I recall, there has not been a service where an alter call was always given, the only exception being the primitive baptists who subscribe to Sola Gracia, or Predestination, and teach that people will come when God calls them. As you may remember, Baptists are an autonomos church organization, each member is responsible before God for knowing and believing, and that is why there is no central authoritative body nor creed, nor statement of Faith that is accepted by all. Each individual pastor is required at his ordination council to answer questions about what he believes, and if the council is in agreement on his answers as orthodox, he is ordained. You will also remember that within any of the 30 plus Baptists bodies, there is a huge amount of room for divergent beliefs about non-essentials, and the alter call is not an essential to faith, simply a tradition that we follow.
Blessings.
Bibleman47

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

The problem I have with the view that unless you have water sprinkled on you you can’t go to heaven is that how then did the thief on the cross go to paradise? Indeed, is deathbed conversions possible?

I think Baptism should be performed on every professing Christian. At the same time, I think a person is forgiven of their sins or justified before God at the moment of their faith, just as Saint Paul says. He says that Abraham was justified before God prior to being circumcised. Now if Baptism is like the Spiritual equivilent of circumcision, than it stands to reason that a person is justified prior to it but that it is the outward representation of that. I happen to believe in full immersion in Baptism personally, but sprinkling is fine too I suppose. I just think that it symbolizes our dying to the world and rising up again to new life with Christ. As we go under the water it’s like our death, and as we rise up it’s like we recieve new life with Christ.

 

[kobudodave]

The problem I have with the view that unless you have water sprinkled on you you can’t go to heaven is that how then did the thief on the cross go to paradise? Indeed, is deathbed conversions possible?

I think Baptism should be performed on every professing Christian. At the same time, I think a person is forgiven of their sins or justified before God at the moment of their faith, just as Saint Paul says. He says that Abraham was justified before God prior to being circumcised. Now if Baptism is like the Spiritual equivilent of circumcision, than it stands to reason that a person is justified prior to it but that it is the outward representation of that. I happen to believe in full immersion in Baptism personally, but sprinkling is fine too I suppose. I just think that it symbolizes our dying to the world and rising up again to new life with Christ. As we go under the water it’s like our death, and as we rise up it’s like we recieve new life with Christ.

The thief on the cross didn’t need baptism because baptism wasn’t necessary THEN. Christ had not died, and the covenant had not been sealed with His blood. John’s baptism wasn’t for salvation, but was a preparation for the real baptism, which IS required for salvation.

Baptism is really only necessary for salvation if the Gospel has been proclaimed to you. The Gospel was not complete yet. Not until Christ died.

What about all the Jews before Christ had come and died? They were not baptized. So how did they get to heaven? It was because they were made to know the promise of God, that a savior would come and ransom them to Himself by his blood.

The verse says “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Today. Meaning, before Christ was risen from the dead. Christ had not risen, so the covenant was not complete. The thief on the cross went to Paradise, not necessarily Heaven. Jesus didn’t go to heaven until AFTER he had risen, three days later.

Is it also possible that Jesus actually said “Amen,** I say to you today**, you will be with me in Paradise.”?

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

So you don’t believe that a person can recieve Christ on their death bed, die and then be with the Lord without Baptism?

 

[kobudodave]

So you don’t believe that a person can receive Christ on their death bed, die and then be with the Lord without Baptism?

I believe that if you truly intend to go through with baptism, for the remission of sins, whether or not you are on your deathbed, that you are in a state of grace. If you are truly converted, and you are on your deathbed, and you ask for baptism (which anyone can perform with a little bit of water, poured three times over the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and receive it, you can obtain salvation. And even if you DIDN’T receive baptism in time, you are can obtain salvation through your desire to be baptized. The RCC calls this the “Baptism of Desire”. It would be un-graceful of God to deny someone salvation because they were stuck in a desert without water, or stuck in the north pole and can’t get the ice to melt (and at which point could harm your health to be baptized anyways).

There are FAR to many examples in the Bible that give us evidence that baptism is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation, that you just can’t ignore it. You can’t pick and choose what in the Bible to believe. 1 Pet 3:21 even TELLS us that baptism saves us. Yes, it is an outward sign, but it is none the less necessary.

 

[kobudodave]

Listen, I can have all the faith I want in Jesus, that he can move mountains with an utterance, or that we could all cease to exist if he just but says the word, or that we can all be saved by His grace. But if I don’t follow him, even though I have faith in Him, I have no hope of salvation.

Faith without works is dead. Faith alone will not be enough to save you in the end. Because on that day, EVERY EYE shall see, and ALL will know that Jesus is Lord, and they will ALL believe. But they will not all be saved based on that belief.

 

[bibleman47]

many of my baptist brethern will howl at this, I’ve been reading a lot on John Bunyan, the author of the Pilgrims Progress, and a staunch baptist of his day, mid 17th cent. Well did not make immersion an issue, nor even believers baptism was barred by him for fellowship, and too boot, immersion was not in question, it was not until the 18th cent or thereabouts that the definition of the word bapto became an issue. I was of the immersion camp for a long time, but I see that although baptism is a necessary part of salvation, I beg to differ as to the mode, also, if we as baptists believe that accepting Christ as Savior is all that is required, and your point about the theif on the cross and death bed convertions is herein answered, than baptism is required to show all, the believer included, that they have left he world, and become part of the church. Why I believe that believers baptism is the only proper method of baptism stems from that, we choose to leave the world to align ourselves with the church,a child, infant or otherwise really ins’t capable of making this step. However in line with proper biblical teaching, God saves us, not the water. It is a sign to show all that we’ve done it. Is it required? Of course it is. Why? Because God said so! Period. Does that mean that those who are not baptized will not be in heaven? Fortuantly that is not for me to decide, it is God’s doing, and since I know that God is always going to do what is the absolute best for all concerned, my life is easier and no one is left out of God’s grace.
I must be going. It has been fun, and I will miss this discussion. Adieu.
Blessings to you all. Bibleman47