[Kolokotronis]

“Prior to birth we are surrounded by water. During birth the water breaks and we are physically born. However, we are not spiritually born “born again” until we have complete faith in Jesus.”

Do I understand you correctly to say that Baptists believe that the “water” Christ speaks of in John is amniotic fluid?

Do Baptists believe in Original Sin?

[wmfights]

Do I understand you correctly to say that Baptists believe that the “water” Christ speaks of in John is amniotic fluid?

I can't speak for all Baptist's.

Yes, I believe the water Jesus is referring to in John 3:5 is the water that you are physically in prior to birth.

[annalex]

Do I understand you correctly to say that Baptists believe that the “water” Christ speaks of in John is amniotic fluid?

This seems to be the teaching I heard from several Baptist sources here. Note that the passage in John 3 uses both "womb" and "flesh", but the Baptists, out of scriptural literalism, no doubt, prefer to think that Jesus introduced yet third way to speak of natural birth, "water", to distinguish it from "baptism" (which, of course, has nothing to do with "water").

[HarleyD]

Do I understand you correctly to say that Baptists believe that the “water” Christ speaks of in John is amniotic fluid?

Forgive me for butting into this conversation that I have not followed. Here is what John Gill, that great Reformed Baptist, had to say on John 3:5.

except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, מלות שנות, "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; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word, which shows, that the ordinance of water baptism is intended: nor has baptism any regenerating influence in it; a person may be baptized, as Simon Magus was, and yet not born again; and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a Gospel church state; yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life and salvation: such a mistaken sense of this text, seems to have given the first birth and rise to infant baptism in the African churches; who taking the words in this bad sense, concluded their children must be baptized, or they could not be saved; whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see Eze_36:25. Which is the moving cause of this new birth, and according to which God begets men again to, a lively hope, and that by which it is effected; for it is by the grace of God, and not by the power of man's free will, that any are regenerated, or made new creatures: and if Nicodemus was an officer in the temple, that took care to provide water at the feasts, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, and as it should seem Nicodemon ben Gorion was, by the story before related of him; very pertinently does our Lord make mention of water, it being his own element: regeneration is sometimes ascribed to God the Father, as in 1Pe_1:3, and sometimes to the Son, 1Jo_2:29 and here to the Spirit, as in Tit_3:5, who convinces of sin, sanctifies, renews, works faith, and every other grace; begins and carries on the work of grace, unto perfection;

John Gill viewed "the water and the Spirit" as the grace of God and the Spirit of God. In other words, man had to be saved by God's grace (water-metaphorical) and by God's Spirit. Man can not rely upon his "free will" to come to know God. He must be born by these two elements.

I would refer you to his Eze_36:25 passage which is a clear comparison of verses. Please note how he also states that the Church wrongly interpreted this to mean that grace was imparted through baptism and, thus the need for infant baptism.

Up until Augustine's day baptism was always a mystery. Augustine, in one of his works, talks about the problems they had in trying to figure out the meaning of baptism. Us Baptists have always had this figured out. ;O)

All Baptists, to my knowledge, believe in Original Sin. However, there are a variety of Baptists and it wouldn't surprise me to find a group or two that does not. (Nothing surprises me any more.)