1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What did Jesus mean?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Craigbythesea, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. You all are making this verse out to be WAY harder than it needs to be or was intending to be taken.

    I mean come on really, if you all have this much trouble with a simple self explanitory verse like this. How can you handle much harder ones.

    Just take John's or Jesus words for what they intended them to be. Born of Water means Physical Birth. Plain and simple

    I notice those who disagree with me never answer me back. HMMMMM I wonder why ?
     
  2. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    14
    Forming interpretations from ambiguous English renditions of originally unambiguous Greek clauses makes for problematic interpretations and unnecessary questions. Flesh may mean physical birth. Being born of spiritual water most likely is its antithesis, without which one may neither see nor enter the Kingdom of God.

    Cheers, Bluefalcon
     
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I disagree. The Greek text as we have it today severed from it original cultural and religious context is ambiguous. For insight as to the degree to which it is ambiguous, I suggest reading the discussion on this passage found in Raymond E. Brown's 1,208 page commentary on John's Gospel.

    Brown was (he died on Aug. 8, 1998) a Roman Catholic scholar, but nonetheless a scholar of the highest caliber, and he does not attempt to interject Roman Catholic Dogma into this passage, but discusses objectively many views, both Catholic and Protestant, and their strengths and their weaknesses, including the views of a number of rather liberal scholars, enabling the conservative Christian to get a good overall view of the scholarly interpretation of this passage without going to a seminary library and reading one liberal work after another. Brown comes to the conclusion that we need to avoid being dogmatic in our interpretation of this passage because of its inherent ambiguity.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    RightFromWrong wrote,

    No one who has any knowledge of the Gospel of John and its author could possibly fail to see that, as is very typical of John’s writings, we have here wording and phrasing that could reasonably be interpreted in many different ways, but not in the way that RightFromWrong is interpreting it.

    She says that she wonders why her posts are not answered—and perhaps the reason why some people find that their posts are not answered is that they have taken so very little time to study the matter before them that they do not have a view that warrants intelligent discussion.

    Charles Spurgeon wrote,


    In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Morning, CraigbytheSea,

    I have Spurgeon's Lectures to His Students. It is a wonderful book that I have read several times. In fact, I am due another reading of it soon.

    When I first read the words of Mr. Spurgeon you have quoted above I flinched. I no longer flinch when I read them now.

    Do you know why? Because I now know Mr. Spurgeon wasn't only talking to me. But sometimes he is speaking to me, but not always. However, when I find he is speaking to me I sometimes do still flinch.

    I am thankful for the revelation God has given to me. I am thankful for the same He has blessed others with throughout the centuries.

    Do you have Cruden's Concordance? I have a copy of it with Spurgeon's introduction . Do you know what he says of Alexander Cruden in this introduction?

    The book is in my study at the church so you'll have to forgive me for paraphrasing it, but here goes.

    Mr. Spurgeon wrote of Mr. Cruden that his ideas and thoughts on scripture were highly eccentric and often unorthodox; however, said Mr. Spurgeon, I confess his concordance has always been at my hand whenever the Bible is, his work has been of the utmost use to me in my studies of Scripture.

    Imagine saying that about Mr. Cruden, yet at the same time showing the immense usefulness of Mr. Cruden's work. Mr. Spurgeon was certainly the prince of preachers but he also seems to have been a prince among believers.

    May God Bless,
    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  6. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===


    I agree with you that they are antithetical!

    I don't think that trying to understand a word inspired by God is being "hung up." IMO we must consider what Nicodemus could have understood Jesus to mean by "water" and what John's first century readers may have understood.

    As for Nicodemus we have the background of OT references to cleansing water, references to ceremonial baptism in Josephus etc, and most significantly, perhaps, the coincidental ministry of John the Baptist. The Baptist , much the topic in Nicodemus' social circle, required WB and repentance as a condition of that.

    As for first century readers, they, I would assume, would be familiar with WB being a part of the Great Commission, a part of apostolic ministry, and that which publically IDs one with Christ as in Gal 3, Rom 6, and Col 2. Furthermore, in this Gospel, sequentially after this dialogue the reader immediately comes across the statement in 3:22 of Jesus' own ministry of water baptism.

    Neither Nicodemus nor John's first century readers have experienced the knee jerk reaction to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration which reaction some may use as a hermeneutic instead of dealing with the evidence actually presented in Scripture.

    No one, certainly not I, is in this thread saying WB saves. But if it is unimportant, why did Jesus command it and the apostles require it?

    Bill

    [ August 29, 2005, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother Bill,
    I believe it is because water baptism identifies us with the local, visible body of Christ, even as the baptism of Christ identified Him with His people and His church.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  8. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. I have been under the teaching of some very good pastors, who are more learned than anyone on this board I am sure. Everyone of them agree's with me and I am sure many others on here. That WATER mean PHYSICAL BIRTH. Great men of God throughout history also agree. Most of them Baptist.

    You guys can throw around your big words and try to sound impressive all you want.
    Too bad common sense and a proper use of hermeneutics is lacking when it comes to rightly dividing the word.

    I still find it interesting NO ONE has explained away my point that if

    BORN OF WATER MEANT BAPTISM THEN WHY DID JESUS TELL THE THIEF ON THE CROSS HE WOULD BE WITH HIM THAT DAY IN PARIDISE ?

    YET JESUS TOLD NICODEMUS THAT IN ORDER TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ONE MUST " BAPTIZED " FIRST THEN BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT SECOND.

    SO THAT WOULD MAKE JESUS A LIAR, AND YOU ARE SAYING BAPTISM COMES BEFORE SALVATION. Guess the Catholics and Lutherans were right on this one

    :confused:
     
  10. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Baptism is being obedient to the Lord, and is an outward picture of what has already been done on the inside. It has nothing to do with salvation.

    It is a picture of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

    Jesus could not very well have gotten the man on the cross down long enough for him to be baptized.

    We can go to Heaven without being baptized, that is evident, but if you are baptized BEFORE you are saved...

    You will go in the water a dry sinner and come up a wet one!
     
  11. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===

    I don't think anyone here is asserting that water baptism saves. I am, however, asserting that if it is done in faith, then it is a part of the discipling process (Mt 28), and the apostles required it (acts 2) and it identifies one with Christ (Rom 6, Gal 3, Col 2).

    I believe in Rom 6 Paul declares that in WB WE (not just Christ) are buried with Christ and WE ( not just Christ) are resurrected with Him.

    In Acts Paul describes his own WB as a washing. IMO, therefore, he attaches some import to it.
     
  13. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. UZThD

    You do believe that in John 3:3 Jesus said that being Born of Water meant baptism DID YOU NOT ?

    If so how do you explain what I just wrote above, how that is IMPOSSIBLE. If you cannot clearly respond I will take it to mean that you CAN'T !
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
    4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
    5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
    6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
    7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

    There are two kinds of birth; two kinds of life:
    physical (fleshly), and spiritual.
    "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the spirit is spirit." Again, there are two and only two kinds of birth.

    If a man is born once he will die twice; if a man is born twice he will die once. You must be born again.
    How?
    "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
    --The word water means water (H2O). Baptism is not mentioned once in this entire chapter. To even suggest that baptism saves or washes away sin is a pagan superstition. Baptismal regeneration is one of the oldest heresies know to Christianity. It does not refer to baptism. The last thing that Nicodemus (a teacher of the Jews) would be thinking about would be baptism. It just isn't in the context.
    To suggest that it refers to the birth water of a mother seems like a logical rendering but it is not necessarily the correct one. All of Scriprure must harmonize together. The word is water, and water is symbolic of something, the question is: What does water represent?

    You must be born of water and of the Spirit.
    Notice that to be born again there are two agents involved: water and the Spirit. We know the one: the Spirit of God. One must be born of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is essential in the New Birth. What is the water?
    What is water used for? Water is a cleansing agent. It is used for cleansing. Here is what Jesus said:

    John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
    --Water is the Word of God. It is the Word of God that cleanses. There are only two agents involved in the new birth: water (the Word), and the Holy Sspirit.

    James says:
    James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
    --"He begat us." That is we are born again with the word of truth, the Word of God. There are only two agents in the new birth: water (the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit).

    Peter says:
    1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
    --The case couldn't be made any clearer. Peter says that a man is born again by the Word of God. There are only two agents by which a man is born again: water (the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit. Peter says one is born again by the Word of God. Thus the meaning must be the Word of God.

    The truth of the matter is that one cannot be born again without the Word of God, the gospel. One needs to hear the preaching of the cross, the gospel message before he can be born again. It is through the Word that he is convicted and is saved. The Word of God is indispensible to salvatioin. There are only two agents to the new birth: water (the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit.
    Scripture bears this out very plainly.
    DHK
     
  16. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once one takes into consideration that no one is ever born that isn't born of the flesh, it would have been redundant of Jesus to clatify with with Nicodemus such ridiculous assumptions as many here make that Jesus was speaking of natural birth.

    To try and separate being "born-again" from the Word of God and the Spirit of God is why so many are religious but LOST.

    They have a working knowledge of the Bible, but nopt the Spirit/ they have a spirit, but not confirmed by the Word of God.

    Theologically, and doctrinally, as comparable with other passages, one cannot conclude any other reason, that is why yall are still discussing something so obvious, Scripturally speaking.

    Good Day
     
  17. DHK..... Well I have never heard that one before or at least explained that way.

    You did a very good job of articulating your point. I think your point and the PHYSICAL point definitely make more sense than it meaning BAPTISM.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
    Eph 5:26

    He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
    Jhn 7:38

    For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
    Jer 2:13

    It is obvious that the living water is the Word.
     
  20. UZThD

    You do believe that in John 3:3 Jesus said that being Born of Water meant baptism DID YOU NOT ?

    If so how do you explain what I just wrote above, how that is IMPOSSIBLE. If you cannot clearly respond I will take it to mean that you CAN'T !

    DHK said it much better than you ever have. He makes a lot of sense ( so do I ) and YOU make NO sense.
     
Loading...