Marysecretary wrote:
“Every human is born of water..the natural birth process (when your water breaks, the babies are ready to be born.) When we receive Christ, we are born again in the spirit. That’s it...”
So, Jesus was telling Nicodemus that first you had to be born before you can be reborn? Is that what you are saying? This idea of yours that being born of water (decoupling it from Jesus’ words “and the Spirit”) in John 3 is simply a reference to natural birth is interesting. Is there any history of such an interpretation of John 3 in the long history of Christendom? It seems to me that this is a novel assertion of very recent vintage.
Your interpretation is, simply, preposterous. It is a wonderful example of imputing 21st century thinking to 1st century reality. Jesus’ point, in perfect accord with the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and, obviously, John, is that John the Baptist, at God’s authority, was to go out to all Israel preaching repentance and baptism. The reason being that all of Israel had sinned, all were called back to the true way God taught them through Moses (from which they had wandered under the leadership of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, and Essenes), and all were, through baptism, to be prepared for the Messiah, who would provide the forgiveness baptism promised. Since Nicodemus had not been baptized, as was the case with many of the religious leadership of the Jews, Jesus was pointing out that before He could understand the nature of God’s rule (that’s what the word kingdom means in most Biblical contexts) through His chosen Christ until he himself had been baptized, again, as God through John the Baptist had commanded.
The context of the term “born again” is John 3. The connection between “born again” and baptism is utterly biblical. Baptism is intended to lead to Christ, to bring the person in question to faith in Christ, and make him or her a disciple of Christ, as Matthew 28:18ff. makes perfectly clear.
Just curious - so when you baptize an infant, that infant comes to a faith in Christ? For the rest of their life?
Even if it against his will?
Should one not make a consious decision about Jesus?
Does one's parents make that decision for them?
What if that baby dies before he is baptised?
Infant baptism just seems so confusing.
Interesting post, but you have it backwards.
The Biblical example is first belief in Jesus (repentance) and then Baptism. There are no examples of infants being baptized and then becoming believers in Scripture. It's a great tool to ensure church membership remains high, but in the end it fills the seats with people who don't know The Gospel and are only there because it is a custom they've grown up with.
If baptism is meant to lead people to Christ, why doesn’t it? I know way too many, including my own relatives, who have NO interest in Christ and they were baptized as infants. No, God draws people to Himself. Baptism is only effective AFTER you have come to Christ.