Church of Christ Debate

Until we have Scripture for "water" referring to physical birth, it becomes like "a book" in Scripture is like our book today.

Scripture is the order of the day.

 

I cannot give you one my friend nor can I give you scripture reference for the gospel being a pearl except in Mt. 7and 13 but it is there for the first time and no time after. I can accept there are various ways of viewing the use of water in John 3 and I certainly would not want to build a doctrine on my understanding of it. I do believe that the inherent danger of baptism for salvation is a lack of complete faith in our Lord.

 

To compare or contrast against "pearl" is not new to Scripture (see Job 28:18; Ps 19:10).

Now I'm not a baptismal regenerationist.

I just believe in proving things from Scripture.

 

For many years, the only interpretation I was taught was that being born of water referred to physical birth.

Then someone pointed out Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that He may sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water of the word.

Here, water is the word, presumably the word of God. Would that apply here? We have to be careful, because the "word" was the Old Testament at the time Jesus spoke this to Nicodemus. And "water" was used on several occasions to mean "cleansing," either actual or ritual.

Any thoughts?

 

Compare John 3:5 and John 3:6

 

I too believe in proof from scripture but I do not believe that everything in scripture has the same symbolic meaning everytime it occurs. Again I would reference the pearl, it is used in Job in comparison to wisdom but in Matthew in reference to the gospel. Yes wisdom is inherent in the gospel but that is not the meaning Christ had. I spent most of my life believing that the reference of water was referring to the word but I have come to feel that Christ was trying to give this educated man a basic lesson He could understand. See V.12, Christ explained the demands of salvation in 3, 5, 7 water only being used in 5 after stating in 3 that we must be born again. Is He not carrying on the thought from V.3 about rebirth. I highly respect and value your understanding and truly enjoy this discussion.

 

Yes, husbands are commanded to wash their brides as Christ washed the church in the word. John tells us the word is Christ himself (John 1:1) existing from the beginning before the Old Testament was written. Again I certainly would not want to try and find fault with another's understanding but I feel the washing is in Christ Himself, through scripture certainly but also through the enviroment of a home dedicated to following Christ's example. Thus surronding our wives with Christ.

 

John 3:12 reads:

"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" (TNIV).

I'm not sure I understand your point from this verse.

Nicodemus is the one who made reference to physical birth.

So I find Jesus' reply in the next verse to be quite odd if "water" refers to physical birth.

What does physical birth have to do with entering the kingdom, if a person is already birth and grown, in the case of Nicodemus?

 

TC, did you take your thinking cap off, bro? Nicodemus IMMEDIATELY asked Jesus if a man could go back into his mother's womb. Isn't that good enough for you to say that the water is the physical birth??

Besides, what I understand of your theology, you would agree that only the Spirit was necessary for regeneration. The "washing of the Word" would merely "inform" the fact that you are saved. It would have NO bearing on the rebirth as you understand it.

skypair

 

Skypair, I think you're the one who took off the thinking cap. Or may the discernment cap?

Cal and non-Cal alike agree that salvation is all of God. The new birth has nothing to do with the physical birth. It is all of God (not the will of man) and all Spiritual.

If one of the requirements for the "new birth" is physical birth, then what happens to babies who die in the womb? They do not qualify for eternal life? See? That's what you end up with when you try to make Jesus statement of "being born of water" mean the physical birth.

 

skypair, I'm just interested in what "water" meanins in John 3:5.

The distinguished Don Carson use to believe that "water" referred to amniotic fluid, but then a student did some research that caused him to change his position.

If Scripture makes it obvious that "water" refers to physical birth, then I'll go with Scripture.

 

Amy, you have raised some good questions for us all to answer. :thumbs:

 

Jesus is referring to water baptism in John 3 but the main point is that one must also be born of the Spirit. He is contrasting John's baptism with baptism in His name which is somehow connected with receiving the gift of the Spirit. Remember the folks in Acts 19 that hadn't received the Spirit and knew only John's baptism. After they were baptized in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit.

 

Cornelius and company received the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water.


Act 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
Act 10:45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
Act 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

 

Ann, I am truly sorry for your loss. raying:

But how far do we go with this? When does life begin? Is that embryo a person? If it dies, what it born? I say yes, it was a person, but no, death does not mean birth. But I don't want to argue with you. I believe when the Bible speaks of birth, it's talking about natural birth. Not c-sections or whatever means modern medicine uses to remove the baby.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. I do not see the new birth having anything to do with physical birth. It is 100% spiritual.

But that is just my opinion.

God Bless

 

True. And the folks in Acts 19 received the Spirit after being immersed. So, which was the rule and which the exception?

 

The rule is this:

Acts was a time of transition in which the Gentiles were now becoming part of God's family. I think the reason that the Holy Spirit delayed in coming to some Gentiles was so that the Jews and the apostles could have absolute proof that God had also accepted the Gentiles.

 

Or . . . maybe the Holy Spirit came to Cornelius and his household as proof to Peter that they could be baptized. Do you think Peter and company would have allowed these Gentiles to be baptized without a sign, such as the coming of the Holy Spirit on them?