“Born of water...” -- exactly what does it mean?
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No it isn't irrelevant. You are complicating the obvious. Nicodemus ASKED, how?
Jesus answered one birth in the natural and a second birth in The Spirit.
We are so accustomed to the concept now, after 2000 years of having written down.
Nicodemus was perplexed so Jesus answered and illustrated in simple terms.
I am not putting forth an argument against being water baptised but that isn't the main point of THIS passage of scripture.
Jesus answered one birth in the natural and a second birth in The Spirit.
We are so accustomed to the concept now, after 2000 years of having written down.
Nicodemus was perplexed so Jesus answered and illustrated in simple terms.
I am not putting forth an argument against being water baptised but that isn't the main point of THIS passage of scripture.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I'M saying,the question above was asking about being born of the spirit without first being born naturally and that's Impossible.
The physcial, natural birth is entirely irrelevant in this matter. Nicodemus asked "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?
Since the Lord had referred to "the Kingdom of God" it should have been obvious to Nicodemus -- a teacher in Israel -- that Christ was speaking of spiritual things. Therefore the question of Nicodemus was not only irrelevant but foolish.
Therefor the Lord had to say to him "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". In other words, to paraphrase Christ "Nicodemus, why do you bring up the matter of physical birth and then ask such a foolish question? The physical birth is the physical birth [That which is born of the flesh is flesh], and IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as far as what I am discussing".
Now Scripture is very economical with words, but that is really the import of what Christ was saying. Human birth is a given for the human condition and has nothing to do with the New Birth -- which is from above.
Since the Lord had referred to "the Kingdom of God" it should have been obvious to Nicodemus -- a teacher in Israel -- that Christ was speaking of spiritual things. Therefore the question of Nicodemus was not only irrelevant but foolish.
Therefor the Lord had to say to him "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". In other words, to paraphrase Christ "Nicodemus, why do you bring up the matter of physical birth and then ask such a foolish question? The physical birth is the physical birth [That which is born of the flesh is flesh], and IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as far as what I am discussing".
Now Scripture is very economical with words, but that is really the import of what Christ was saying. Human birth is a given for the human condition and has nothing to do with the New Birth -- which is from above.
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis, so your argument here in regards to Matthew 26:18 is moot.
In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus said, "This IS my body when He took the bread." When He took the cup, He said, "This IS my blood." Of course, His body was still His body and His blood was still in His body. He was using attributing the reality to the emblem, yet the emblem is not the reality. When a believer is water baptized, sins are not washed away literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins are actually washed away.
Since it's not possible for an external ordinance to do an internal work on the heart, baptism can not do these things except in a literal sense, yet it represents the remission of sins by the death of Christ, which was the real remission (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22-28). Christ put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself.
In EXPERIENCE, the remission of sins comes to us through FAITH in Christ (Acts 26:18; Romans 3:24-26).
So, "remission of sins" has three applications:
1. Literally, by the sacrificial death of Christ - Matt. 26:28
2. Experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43; 26:18
3. Ceremonially, by water baptism - Acts 2:38; 22:16
Based on your biased conclusion, but not in reality. NOWHERE in the Bible did Jesus say, "whoever is not water baptized will be condemned." *Also, see John 4:10,14; 7:37-39 to see what Jesus meant by being born of water.
In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus said, "This IS my body when He took the bread." When He took the cup, He said, "This IS my blood." Of course, His body was still His body and His blood was still in His body. He was using attributing the reality to the emblem, yet the emblem is not the reality. When a believer is water baptized, sins are not washed away literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins are actually washed away.
Since it's not possible for an external ordinance to do an internal work on the heart, baptism can not do these things except in a literal sense, yet it represents the remission of sins by the death of Christ, which was the real remission (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22-28). Christ put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself.
In EXPERIENCE, the remission of sins comes to us through FAITH in Christ (Acts 26:18; Romans 3:24-26).
So, "remission of sins" has three applications:
1. Literally, by the sacrificial death of Christ - Matt. 26:28
2. Experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43; 26:18
3. Ceremonially, by water baptism - Acts 2:38; 22:16
Based on your biased conclusion, but not in reality. NOWHERE in the Bible did Jesus say, "whoever is not water baptized will be condemned." *Also, see John 4:10,14; 7:37-39 to see what Jesus meant by being born of water.
Now was this baptism of repentance in Mark 1:4 for (eis) "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or was it for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance? Be careful. This was BEFORE Pentecost.
I've heard people who attend the church of Christ (including church of Christ preachers) say that water baptism was NOT necessary for salvation BEFORE Pentecost but it is necessary for salvation AFTER Pentecost *in order to "get around" the thief on the cross receiving salvation through faith apart from water baptism.*
So how do you interpret Matthew 3:11? Notice - I baptize you with water "for" (eis) repentance.. Now was this baptism for (eis) "in order to obtain" repentance or was it for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Being water baptized "in order to obtain repentance" would make so sense at all.
I've heard people who attend the church of Christ (including church of Christ preachers) say that water baptism was NOT necessary for salvation BEFORE Pentecost but it is necessary for salvation AFTER Pentecost *in order to "get around" the thief on the cross receiving salvation through faith apart from water baptism.*
So how do you interpret Matthew 3:11? Notice - I baptize you with water "for" (eis) repentance.. Now was this baptism for (eis) "in order to obtain" repentance or was it for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Being water baptized "in order to obtain repentance" would make so sense at all.
You are talking with 2000 years of hindsight. Having KNOWN about The indwelling Holy Spirit for (probably) many years.
You have Nicodemus (then) at a unfair advantage. Being born again was not understood then. Even by the learned. It was being taught by God incarnate to a human being for the first time.
John 3:10
"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?
You are over-complicating things.
Jesus was giving a simple illustration to Nicodemus. I stand by what I said before.
You have Nicodemus (then) at a unfair advantage. Being born again was not understood then. Even by the learned. It was being taught by God incarnate to a human being for the first time.
John 3:10
"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?
You are over-complicating things.
Jesus was giving a simple illustration to Nicodemus. I stand by what I said before.
E
Jesus told us what the water is
The which is born of flesh (water) is flesh, that which is born of spirit (spirit) is spirit.,
Nicodemus asked, How can I be reborn again, enter my mothers womb (water) again?
Jesus told him one must be born AGHAIN (two births) one was physical. The birth he is talking about is spiritual.
In no way was jesus talking about water baptism. If he was, he would hae mentioned baptism in later verses when he talked about giving eternal life (new birth which is eternal)
The which is born of flesh (water) is flesh, that which is born of spirit (spirit) is spirit.,
Nicodemus asked, How can I be reborn again, enter my mothers womb (water) again?
Jesus told him one must be born AGHAIN (two births) one was physical. The birth he is talking about is spiritual.
In no way was jesus talking about water baptism. If he was, he would hae mentioned baptism in later verses when he talked about giving eternal life (new birth which is eternal)
m...,
The thief on the cross had two possible conditions;
1) He had been a Christian and had fallen away (previously baptized) and was renewing his righteous commitment.
2) He could have very well been a recipient of ....special dispensation.... directly from Christ...which is most likely.
In any event it does not alter the fact that The Bible clearly states ...baptism is necessary for the final element of sin cleansing.... during the repentance process.
The thief on the cross had two possible conditions;
1) He had been a Christian and had fallen away (previously baptized) and was renewing his righteous commitment.
2) He could have very well been a recipient of ....special dispensation.... directly from Christ...which is most likely.
In any event it does not alter the fact that The Bible clearly states ...baptism is necessary for the final element of sin cleansing.... during the repentance process.