Featured "born of water" does not mean "baptized".

Let me ask??????

The Lord Jesus, uniquely, stood in no need of a new birth, having no sins to be washed away.

Where is sin spoken of in John 3?

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 John 4:2,3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 5:6 YLT This one is he who did come through water and blood -- Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,

1 Cor 15:21-23 for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead, for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, Question Is to be made alive out of death regeneration or not?

Hebrews 2:14 KJV Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Verse 50 1 Cor 15 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Did that apply to Jesus Christ?

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

What about John 3?

1 Cor 15:45 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Presently is a first-fruit Christ the only one born of woman to have experienced 1 Cor 15:45?

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

When was Christ quickened by the Spirit?

 

Now it appears that one must look at the over all extent of Christ's Forgiveness (His Atonement), a subject that IMHO has divided Christianity for centuries. This really wasn't my intention when asking about one's definition of 1 Peter 3:21. (The exposition you gave WAS indeed very comprehensive, & I thank you for that!), I don't think my friend would want to tackle the question(s) of "For Whom Christ Died" though. OTOH, he still maintains that since water baptism is a part of what the Savior commissioned His people to do PLUS the fact that not only did Peter say water baptism is a part of the New Birth (Acts 2:38), and that Paul DID IN FACT baptize some people, therefore the Bible DOES teach us that water baptism IS a very vital part of the New Birth, &, therefore we MUST include it when we urge people to be Born Again!! Comments?

 

I don't think that WATER = Physical Birth.

Is Jesus really stating that those that die in miscarriage CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD?
What about those not "born" ... like a C-section?

I agree that it is not "water baptism", but I think both elements are spiritual. Cleansing of water to wash away the old sin (like the ritual washing or the symbolism behind John's Baptism) and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (new Heart and new Mind).
One must remove the "old wine" and be filled with the "new wine". One must put off the "old man" and put on the "new man".

One must be cleansed (WATER) and reborn (SPIRIT) ... "repent and be baptized" ... same symbolism of Death and Rebirth appearing over and over.

 

The reason I believe it does refer to physical birth is two fold, Nicodemus' question, John 3:4 and Jesus' answer, John 3:5-7, ". . . That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . ."

 

Thanks for your insight referring to Nicodemus in John 3:4-7, but, IMHO anyway, that in and of itself doesn't do away (In my friend's way of thinking) or in any way negate the simple fact that water baptism MUST be a vital part of the "New Birthing" method. Any additional comments might help me to at least steer him away from his insistence that water baptism IS STILL part and parcel of bringing the New Birth into a person's life He stated that Acts 8:26-39 PROVES that water baptism MUST be included if a person is truly born again. HELP!!

 

That renders "water and" in Jesus' statement meaningless drivel. Who exists that was never born, so being "born of water" is a non-issue. Why would Jesus even waste time to mention that those that have never been born cannot enter the Kingdom?

Within the context of Jesus speaking to a leading Pharisee, to emphasize that the Kingdom requires BOTH physical and Spiritual birth lends support to the Judaizer argument. To enter the Kingdom, one must both be physically BORN into the chosen people of the Kingdom and spiritually BORN into the chosen (elect) of God. Would that not be the correct interpretation for a First Century Pharisee using your exegesis of Water as Physical Birth?

Is that in harmony with Jesus' message?

 

You are attacking at a point where YOU will loose the fight.

Who can really prove that someone was not saved when they were baptized?
Are you God? Only God knows who is saved and can prove it.

Let that fight go unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
If he was saved at that baptism (or sometime before or after it), then what should have happened (according to Scripture)?

• received the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing his inheritance.
• produced "Fruit of the Spirit"
• "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together"
• "love one another as I have loved you"
• "Husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church"

So how is y'alls walk.
As two "Christians" iron should be sharpening iron and two cords are stringer than one.

Lead him back to "fellowship" and let God work on the hard TRUTHS.
Maybe he is a baby that the church abandoned at birth.

 

John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism. The text John 3:5-7 explicitly speaks of two births. Nowhere is baptism referred to as any kind of birth.

 

Jesus was answering being born over. John 3:6, ". . .That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . ." Two births.

 

?

That renders "water and" in Jesus' statement meaningless drivel. Who exists that was never born, so being "born of water" is a non-issue. Why would Jesus even waste time to mention that those that have never been born cannot enter the Kingdom?

What would the answer to that say, relative to natural miscarriage, rather than let's say, man made miscarriage?

How many passages in the bible address miscarriage?

Is Isa 66:9 one of them? Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

BTW I favor born of water being natural birth,

 

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Rom 1:3,4

Does that speak of son ship of, one person born of woman, in two different manners?

Does it describe what took place in the following? but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:46

Who? What two manners

Is one of those manners specifically called. "firstborn from the dead," is two different places in the word of God ? Col 1:18 & Rev 1:5

 

Agree!

But, it's also possible the verse could be rendered as:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water even the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! Jn 3

...which does not negate the application of the OT passages you cited. Christ is talking about a 'birth from above', you know. A spiritual birth:

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; (Galatians 4:26; John 1:13)
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3 YLT

 

That is possible, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. The usual meaning of kai is 'and' and I see no pressing reason to translate it differently in John 3:5.

Yes indeed. The usual meaning of anothen is 'from above' (Matthew 27:51; John 3:31; 19:11; James 1:17 etc.). It does however, mean 'again' in Galatians 4:9. The reason that most translators render it as 'again' in John 3:3, 7, is because that is how Nicodemus understood it (John 3:4).
But we are in agreement that the New Birth is a spiritual birth.

 

John 3:3-8 [NKJV]

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born [of water] and the Spirit, he cannot enter 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 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."


3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of [*] the Spirit, he cannot enter 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 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
​

What difference is there in the meaning if the words are removed?
NONE if water means natural birth. So what is the point of saying foolish things? Of course you cannot be saved if you were never born, there is no need to waste breath mentioning it. The reference to being born of water as a prerequisite for entering the kingdom of God makes no sense as natural birth since even the damned were born naturally … thus being born of water to enter the kingdom must be something more than the damned have.

 

I don't think it's a stretch at all:

"...except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, , "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water..." Gill

"...By water then we are to understand the grace of the Holy Spirit in purifying the soul, which is fitly represented by the efficacy of water. And this purifying, refreshing virtue of the Spirit is promised in the prophecies that concern the times of the Messiah, under the mystical expression of water...." Matthew Poole

"...this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel (Eze 36:25-27)..." Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown

 

I think you are adding to what is being said here. First, we technically do not know what happens to the unborn. Scripture does not definitively say. Second, C-Sections are still a flesh birth and the water still breaks.

 

You've not been baptized then?

 

Do you believe the heresy that "born of water" in John 3:5 referes to baptism?

 

The imagery of a physical birth created by defining “born of water” as “born of amniotic fluid” is incompatible with a C-section. That would be like equating “born of the Spirit” with demonic possession … there are some superficial similarities, but some very significant differences.

I agree that we do not know what happens to the unborn, but only because Jesus did not say that the two conditions for entering the kingdom are physical birth and spiritual birth. If Jesus had said that, we would have our answer … those not born of the spirit cannot enter the kingdom and those not born of the flesh cannot enter the kingdom.

We do not know if the spirit claims the unborn, but we know for certain that they are not physically born.