What Does "Born of Water" Mean in John 3:5? | Episode 136
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 дек 2023
- John 3:5 quotes Jesus as saying, “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.” What does the phrase "born of water" mean, and how does it apply to us? Dr. David K. Bernard examines the biblical text to provide an answer.
For further study on this topic, see Dr. Bernard's book "The New Birth," available at pentecostalpublishing.com/pro....
If you enjoyed this video, subscribe to this channel so you'll never miss another episode. You can listen to the audio version of this podcast on Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and other podcast platforms.
Finally, I finally found a well-thought, logical, and apostolic explanation of this very topic. Salute brother! God bless you. 🕊️
This man truly has researched the word of God, and makes the fundamental teachings of the Bible clear and easy to understand. The key word David Bernard uses is CONTEXT, for any doctrine must comply with the WHOLE word of God. Excellent teaching of this passage of scripture, AMEN !
@@alanhales11231 Peter 3:20-21 compares baptism to Noah’s ark (giving a clear indication the baptism referred to in verse 21 is about water) then it says it also saves us thus baptism does save us (but not baptism alone but also repentance of sin Luke 13:3 acts 2:38) as well as receiving the Holy Ghost and living a life of holiness from there Hebrews 12:14
@@alanhales1123 - sorry my friend, your assertion here is considered unorthodox. Baptism is one of the known Mysteries in the Church. In an Orthodox temple, the area where the people stand is called the Nave… and is symbolically linked to Noah’s ark…
Generally, folks who argue against baptism, seem to view being baptized as a work…. And they tend to fall in the Sola Fide camp. It is through baptism we are immersed and joined to Christ… that we may put on Christ. I know that you seem to go with the whole notion of Greek and Hebrew bibles… as being superior. I am not a fundamentalist… And I think trying to disprove the English translation just adds to confusion. The English text is solid enough translation to work with. In Orthodoxy, we have the Scriptures and Tradition - and the Church Fathers… together, that brings about a full counsel of God. Trust you are well.
@@Dhjasjjs - Orthodoxy holds this understanding as you state as well.
@@alanhales1123
Acts 2:38 Repent, Baptized, Holy Spirit.!
Without this you go to Hell, are you willing to take that chance.???
God says what he means and means what he says.
@@alanhales1123
1 Peter 3:21
[21]The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Mark 16:16
[16]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Excellent teaching Bishop!!! ❤
Brilliant teaching! I agree with Brother Bernard, 100%.
so clear... i still dont know why others disagree the importance of Baptism, especially, the ironic "Baptists"
Because narrow is the way, and few there be that find it.
I may be wrong but I believe Baptists are dispensationalists. If so, they likely don't believe baptism is necessary based on those views.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation
@@alanhales1123
CONNECTING THE BLOOD OF CHRIST AND WATER BAPTISM
The Scriptures teach that there’s a direct connection between the blood of Christ and baptism. Now, I realize that many deny such a connection, but it remains true, nevertheless. This article will demonstrate that connection.
The phrase, “for the remission of sins,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. When our Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mt.26:26-29), He said these words with respect to the cup: “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (v.27-28). This clearly shows the reason that Christ shed His blood, i.e. the remission of sins. Indeed, the Hebrew writer affirms, “without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Hb.9:22). However, in Acts 2, when the people asked Peter what they must do to be saved, He said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38). Note that we are baptized for the very same reason that Jesus shed His blood. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
The phrase, “death of His Son,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. Paul said to the saints at Rome, “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Rm.5:10). The death of Jesus via the shedding of His blood results in being reconciled. But just a few verses later, Paul continued, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (Rm.6:3). Just as surely as we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, we must be baptized into that same death. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
The phrase, “washed from our sins,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. In the book of Revelation, John described Jesus as “Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood” (1:5). It is the bright red blood of Jesus Christ that washes away our sins! But don’t forget that Ananias told Paul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Ac.22:16). Just as surely as Jesus washes away our sins by His blood, He only does so when we are baptized. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
The phrase, “hearts sprinkled… bodies washed,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. The Hebrew writer said, “Let us draw near (to God, L.S.) with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hb.10:22). The sprinkling is a reference to the blood of Christ (1Pt.1:2). And the washing of water is a reference to water baptism (Ep.5:25-26; cf. Ac.22:16). These two seemingly different things are brought together in this one verse. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
The phrase, “shall be saved,” connects the blood of Christ and baptism. In Romans 5:8-9, the apostle Paul said, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” But when Jesus gave the “Great Commission,” He said these words: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk.16:15-16). So, while there is no doubt that Jesus saves us by His blood, He only does so when we are baptized. This connects the blood of Christ to baptism!
The connection is clear: Christ shed His blood on the cross to make salvation possible; and in baptism, we obtain the benefits of that shed blood. The only question that remains is, “Have you been baptized into Christ Jesus?” (Rm.6:3). If you haven’t but would like to be, let us know. We will be glad to help!
@@ENDTIME_GENERATION Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
I pray the Lord Jesus opens your eyes to the truth of His word, not just what you have been taught to believe.
Excellent teaching and explaining the Word of God! May God deeply bless you, Brother Bernard. I could listen to you all day explaining the Word of God. The Holy Bible. You bring it to life and so easy to understand. Thank you so very much! 🙏🏻
LIKE from Mizoram, UPC (North East India)
Amen, the clear explanation as a Cristal clear
Brother, I believe also Romans, 6:3 is in Line with your very good discussion,,,, enjoy your podcast as always,,,Thank you for going where the pre-Appollos teachers dare not.🙏❤🙏🌹
BIG AMEN and 100% CONVINCED..THIS IS THAT
Thank you Dr. Bernard, thank you for sound wisdom and doctrine, I have a petition; can you do a study or a lesson on the distinction of Oneness theology and Unitarianism?
Great teaching ! John the baptism said, in scripture, as he watched those repenting on the banks of the Jordan river, " Bring forth fruit meet for repentance"(Matt.3:8). The word " meet" defined ,means that which accompanies.
Repentance is incomplete unless followed by water baptism.
Orthodox Understanding regarding the Mystery of water as necessary - against the notion of Sola Vide or Only Faith… “Because just as Christ actually died on a cross, was buried, and rose again - all through His Faith and God’s grace - so we must actually be immersed in the sacramental waters of baptism, made effectual through our faith and God’s grace”. Commentary for ‘The New Birth’ in the OSB while explaining John 3.
@@alanhales1123 to what end? What would be the goal of these evil translators … and how do we know that the bibles you’re referencing are not as corrupted as the KJV and the LXX as you are claiming? Baptism is a Mystery in Orthodox. Outside of Orthodoxy - it may be open for debate. Catechumens are buried in baptism with Christ.
We do not view God’s salvific plan in our lives as ‘fire insurance’ - nor do we ascribe to the American revivalist approach to conversion… so ‘getting saved’ - is a total buzzing in the Orthodox fronema. We do not view salvation as juridical … rather we view God’s work in our lives as medicinal… to the healing of our soul. Orthodox spirituality is deeply mystical and is unlike the Fractured West.
♥️🌹♥️🌹🙏🙏 Finally, a real teacher, teaching true doctrine on the internet ♥️🌹🙏🙏🙏the proof in his doctrine of this Teaching, is Acts, 2:38 is the final result of The New Testament conversion, Jesus is the name of, Father, son, holy ghost showing forth a mystery oneness, see, 1tim,3:16, col, 2:9, Rom, 6:3, Rom, 8:9, Jn,3:5, John,4:24, ect, ect, ect, if one rejects water baptism, they reject the counsel of GOD against themselves,,,see Hebrews, ch, 6, baptism is part of the foundational, principal oracles of GOD,,,be not among the 5 foolish virgins 🌹♥️🙏❤🙏🌹
It would be great to hear you do a segment on the "light" doctrine that is being propagated by some in apostolic ranks as truth.
Havnt heard of it? Curious as to what it entails?
There is quite an article online about it written by JR Ensey.
@@DallendhThe Light Doctrine is a form of the heresy of Christian Universalism that claims that God judges people based on "the light" of whatever truth that they have understood and that those who profess a faith in Jesus without being born again aren't necessarily unsaved, some going so far as teaching that those who haven't even heard of Jesus can be saved without the new birth experience so long as they do the best that they can with what truth that they have been given. It developed in the early twenty first century among some Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals in response to persecution from those within the Trinitarian Evangelical Pentecostal camps, as well as the Fundamentalists, Baptists and Wesleyan Holiness Methodists from out of whose movements the modern OAP movement arose, and the desire to avoid offending other professed "Christians" in Protestant Catholic Churchianity who deny the truth that the new birth experience is received through baptism with water and the Spirit. It is borne of an escapist desire for ecumenism in direct contravention to the scriptural doctrine of separation, and it leads to a denial of the essentiality of the new birth experience in the plan of salvation.
Steve Waldron, the pastor of New Life of Albany (Georgia), has published several videos in which he addresses this heresy. I recommend checking out his channel (@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa) and searching it for the phrase "light doctrine" for more info.
Agreed!
Is Jesus baptizing more folks than John the Forerunner after His born again conversation with Nicodemus - latter part of Chapter 3 and into 4?
The problem I have with being born of water as a two-part principle for being born again is that this is teaching being born again "twice." Note it says, "born of water and of the Spirit." Are we born again twice?
How do we know when Jesus christ comes back to earth
I am curious about your thoughts on Paul's verses about women in the church. What role should a pastor's wife play in a church? And should women be allowed to be pastors themselves?
See Episode 77 "Does the Bible Support Women in Ministry?" - ruclips.net/video/BXQVZmBTyZA/видео.htmlsi=9a4JTUBaDAN4WQg6 (Podcast Production Team)
Dr Bernard correctly states that in Orthodoxy, the mystery of waters in baptism is NOT linked to natural birth. The ‘natural birth’ notion is a Protestant innovation and is entirely rejected by Orthodoxy. The Church, in her Wisdom, sees the New Birth experience as ‘occurring here on earth… or earthly things… but - they are also connected to heavenly things. Our full humanity is brought into union with Divinity - through baptism and chrismation - through our faith in God, and enabled by God’s grace.
Amen
What about James 1:18 and 1st Peter 1:23?
I greatly worry about my father. He loves Jesus, faithfully attends his church and is heavily involved therein, and deeply studies his bible on his own time as well. However, he is a trinitarian and also believes in the "repeat-after-me" sinner's prayer as a means of salvation. Unfortunately, because of his devotion to God and the amount of time he's personally put forth into studying His Word, my father has become absolutely closed to hearing any doctrine that goes against what he grew up believing; even to the point of getting pissed off at a person, or trying to create "gotcha" moments in debates that serve less of a purpose of reaching the person and more of a purpose of "whaddya have to say to that, huh?"
What worries me the most, however, is what he said when we discussed this very passage of scripture. I don't remember his exact words, but he basically told me that no one truly knows what Jesus meant by born of water, but that we do know He was NOT talking about water baptism (he's of the belief that baptism is a public profession of faith).
I would love nothing more than to get through to my father on this, even if all he does is listen for a minute (at least I'll have planted a seed that way!). The problem is that, knowing him, I can easily see this turning into a heated argument that might lead to the destruction of our relationship. THAT I'm not so worried about, as I know losing people--sometimes even family--is a price we pay for speaking the truth, but if I lose all connection with my father in this particular manner, the seed I'd have been attempting to plant wouldn't even be received well enough for him to consider this information later. Likely, the only thing he'd remember when he would look back on the whole thing is how absolutely wrong I was and how upset I made him by my insistence.
I wouldn't mind losing him quite as much if I could at least plant that seed in the process; but knowing him, he'd do anything he coud to crush the seed and let me see him do it, all while telling me how I've been taken in by blasphemous teachings. In the end, not only would I have lost my dad, but I'd have accomplished nothing in the process.
Or, the opposite will happen!!! You will change no ones mind, but the Word of God and His Spirit can never fail or return void. You will plant the seed but God will do the miraculous part. Have faith in this truth you know, it will not fail. I recommend you Go into focused prayer and fasting before you have your conversation. Ask God to soften His heart, the soil where you will plant the seed. Ask God to prepare His mind to receive. ask God to send Angels to be with you during this meeting. Even the Angel that visited Cornelius and his household when they received the Holy Ghost and revelation of baptism. Fasting, prayer, angels, truth, love, and God's Word will not fail. Ask for God to guide you on timing and to give you the wisdom and words to speak as the Holy Ghost would flow through you. I believe you can do all things through Christ. Don't give up. Fast, pray, worship and study. the timing will line up and God will do His perfect work! In Jesus' Name!!!
@@LoulouVitt I'm guessing you did some prayer and fasting of your own before writing this reply; you're a total stranger to me whom I know nothing about, and therefore have no solid reason to take anything you say, and yet ... for the first time, I feel hope in this matter. Obviously, the fear and the apprehension is still there as well, but there is also hope.
At this point, I feel 100% certain that you didn't come up with those words on your own, but rather that you were led by the Spirit yourself. Even so, thanks to free will, it was still your choice to follow or not, and you chose to let God lead you. For that, you have my deepest gratitude.
Thank you 🥲
@@alanhales1123 Here's the thing. I'm very familiar with the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, as I not only own a copy of Strong's Concordance, but I make use of it nearly every day. As such, to me it sounds like you don't actually know what you're talking about.
But since you've made the claim, back it up! Explain to me how the beginning of the book of Genesis, which is a description of God's creative powers and not His nature of being, describes the trinity. When you're done, I can also give you countless passages of scripture that directly describe God as a singular being who doesn't have any type of split personalities, because that's really all a triune nature is.
@@alanhales1123 The first thing you should understand about the Hebvrew and Greek languages is that they are human languages. Like any other language, they were constructed around human understanding and cultural idioms. In medieval times, kings often refered to themselves with the plural pronoun "we"; does that mean they were a singular being composed of multiple persons within? Of course not, that'd be silly. So it is with the use of "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1. When the human writer of Genesis wrote the book in the human language of Hebrew, he used the human cultural idiom of using the plural form of a word to denote majesty.
Besides, even if you look at the logic of how the trinity is taught, the use of "Elohim" in Gn. 1:1 actually contradicts it. "Elohim" is basically the plural of "God", meaning "Gods." This word does not describe a triune being, or a singular being in any sense of the word. It literally means "Gods", that is, more than one God. However, since we know that the Bible teaches that there is only one God, the only other thing that would make sense without contradicting the rest of the Bible on this matter would be that they used the plural form of the word to denote majesty as they often did with kings in those days.
When you apply the teachings of the trinity to the use of "Elohim" in Gn. 1:1, you actually end up implying that multiple Gods created the heavens and the earth. In no way, shape or form can it accurately mean "In the beginning, a triune God (or a God of multiple persons) created the heavens and the earth." No, it literally means "In the beginning, Gods created the heaven and the earth," and in trinitarian logic, that'd mean multiple Gods, not one God expressed in three persons. Heck, the number three isn't even hinted at here!
I suggest you look up Dueteronomy 6:4 in the original Hebrew, and Colossians 2:9 & I Timothy 3:16 in the original Greek. You'll find that Jehovah--which was the name by which God was known during Old Testament times--was directly described as one, and not three in one. You'll also find that Jesus is not in the Godhead (a word that is more accurately translated as "divinity"), but the entirety of the Godhead was in Jesus bodily. The term "Son" literally only refers to the humanity of Jesus. In deity, Jesus is literally, as you trinitarians might say, God Himself.
@@alanhales1123 I knew this would be a pointless discussion; honestly, I only answered you because I already said I'd do so at least once. But before I leave it, I do have one question for you: as a hardcore trinitarian believer, what are you even doing here anyway? Why watch videos that you know full well go against the grain of what you believe and are, as you see them to be, heretical teachings? What's the point?
You're not going to convince anyone to change their beliefs, as most of us were once trinitarians ourselves, and from our POV, we're the ones who have finally seen the truth, and therefore there is zero chance of turning back. You must know this. And that said, the only thing you can possibly accomplish by engaging us like you have with me, is nothing more than start a pointless, heated argument.
Not a very Christian attitude, whether you're trinitarian or oneness, honestly.
The Church has always viewed her baptismal pool as her womb. “He that is baptized into Christ… Has put on Christ…” is joyfully sung chanted by all witnesses as the catechumen is transformed into the newly illumined… through baptism and chrismation. One cannot enter into His eternal Kingdom without entering into the womb of the Church
The Apostles taught and the Church has preserved through the Ages baptism. Ritualistic bathing is found in all three Abrahamic religious. Tevilah to the Jews. Baptism to the Christian. And I can’t recall what the Islamic word is but I think it starts with the letter ‘R’. And when I say bathing, I am not talking about daily hygiene …
What are the requirements.
Can one be false baptized.
What about baptism at birth.
Baptism and what it does.
1. At baptism your sins are forgiven/remitted: Acts 2:38:
2. At baptism your sins are washed away: Acts 22:16
3. Baptism enters you into the Kingdom of God: John 3
4. At Baptism we are buried with him Romans 6:4
5. Buried with Him at baptism Colossians 2:12
6. Baptized into Christ Galatians 3:27
Two scriptures that show baptism is part of salvation.
1. Those that Believe and is baptized shall be saved: Mark 16:16
2. Saved by baptism 1 Peter 3:20-21
what is the difference between holy ghost and holy spirit?
The same thing
Actually, Acts 10:47, 48 refutes the being born of the water. They were baptized in the mighty power of the Holy Ghost. Does that mean that you can receive the Holy Spirit (baptism) without being born again? There is no way that a person can receive the baptism of the Spirit is they are not born again. No way.
Also the new birth is them coming our of egypt and thengoing through the jordan and that is how that that teacher in Israel could know this and also titis says washing (water Baptism) and then Regneration that is the receiving of the soirit in and that is Spirit baptism then 1 cor 10 we got baptized into moses and then through the cloud also.entering over the Jordon again.
Nicodemus understood properly. He was a scholar, and he understood Jesus was not speaking of water baptism initially. While context is important, it is even more important to read the words within the context and understand why they are spoken. Nicodemus asked a question based on his understanding, it is evident he understood Jesus to say being born via the birth waters. This is important because one cannot be baptized unless they are born. So in this context, we are baptized, and I believe that is the more significant issue. I will stand with my Oneness brethren on repentance and baptism as prescribed in Acts 2:38. This was decreed by God, and it is necessary, but I will have to respectfully disagree on the idea that one has not received the Holy Ghost if they don't speak in tongues. Regardless, it is evident that upon our birth we are baptized, and then we must repent and be baptized as prescribed by Acts 2:38.
So, people born of cesarean are disqualified because they're not born at all. To say that the passage means natural birth is ignorant and deceptive
@@wjdyr6261 Or, your concerns can be explained in this way: the birth waters are what we call the amniotic fluid which surrounds the baby during pregnancy. Baptism only requires total immersion with no specified time on that immersion. Since the baby is completely immersed in the amniotic fluid, they are baptized via the birth waters. Whether a natural birth or a C-section, the birth waters are broken and this is no different than bringing up one who has been baptized from the baptism waters.
@@derrickpurdy7011 sorry but that's a false position and not what Jesus said or meant. Cesarean surgery disqualifies people then. That's how ignorant natural birth position is.
@@derrickpurdy7011why would Jesus Christ who new nicodemus was already born in a woman water bag told him he must be born again of water and of the spirit? That don’t make any sense being born again of water is not dealing with being born in a woman water bag because nicodemus already ask Jesus Christ if he must be born a second time of the flesh and Jesus Christ told him he must be born again of water and of the spirit to see the kingdom of heaven (scriptures/knowledge of the truth/jesus Christ) , so the process of being born of a woman is flesh (born of the seed of Satan/sin by Adam’s transgression) but the process of being born again of water and of the spirit is spiritual ( born of the seed of God/holiness and righteousness by Jesus Christ death ,burial and resurrection) so being born again of water is equal to being water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the washing and regeneration from sin/remission of sin acts:2:38, Titus:3:5 and being born again of spirit is the renewal of the Holy Ghost/ receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost acts:2:38, Titus:3:5 , you can study the book of acts and see that the apostles of Jesus Christ was ensuring that all believers was water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and that they receive the Holy Ghost , they were actually fulfilling what Jesus Christ told them to preach the gospel to every creature he that believes and is baptized shall be saved mark:16:15-16 , get right with God believe the gospel, repent and get water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and make sure you receive the Holy Ghost and live by the word and be on the safe side like all believers in the New Testament, God bless
@@MosesHillocks Water baptism as we know it was instituted at Pentecost. This followed Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven. Prior to Acts 2:38, the only form of baptism available was the birth waters of our mother because water baptism as prescribed in Acts 2:38 had not been instituted yet. Since this was the case, Nicodemus knew the only way he could be baptized (think total immersion here) was to be placed back into the birth waters of his mother (which is why Nicodemus asked how he can be born a second time). Initially, Jesus did mean exactly what Nicodemus thought He meant, for only those who have been inside the birth waters of their mother may be baptized (as referred to in Acts 2:38). At the time of his conversation with Jesus, this baptism had not been instituted, and thus Nicodemus could not fully understand what Jesus was talking about regarding the baptism of water and the Spirit. I want to be abundantly clear so there is no misunderstanding: In John 3 Jesus was referring to our time in the birth waters as baptism, AND he was also telling Nicodemus (and by extension us) of the baptism of water and the Spirit that would later be prescribed in Acts 2:38. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you've had.
here
When one is born again they are born of the Spirit which enables them at that moment to “see” the kingdom.
The key to understanding this verse is to understand the meaning of the word kingdom.
The kingdom is not the same as heaven as most believe. The kingdom is the king’s dominion and it refers the rule and reign of a sovereign.
The only individuals capable of seeing the (kings dominion) are born again believers.
All believers will one day enter heaven, but not all will qualify to enter into the rule and reign in the Lord’s coming kingdom.
The way in which a born again believer qualifies to enter the kingdom is to also be born of water. This points to the “washing of water by the word” which points to the believers sanctification.
Follow and obey JESUSCHRIST and his Apostles and Disciples because they followed and obeyed JESUSCHRIST!!!
once you repent and believe you are saved and from then, immediately, the Holy Spirit will dwell within you
@@elleddiana . . Repentance is not required for the new birth according to the following verses … Acts 13:38-39, Acts 16:30-31, Rom 3:22,28, Gal 3:2, Eph 2:8-9.
@@harvestworkers626why would you need a saviour if repentance is not required?
@@elleddiana . . A Savior is required for the forgiveness of sins and Jesus Christ is that Savior who died for our sins by His death on the cross. He said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”’ and later said “It is Finished!”
Christ’s sinless blood was shed on the cross and our sins were forgiven. The only thing left for the unregenerate sinner is to BELIEVE what Jesus Christ did and receive the free gift of salvation.
Now the believer can repent (change their mind) and live for Jesus or they can choose not to live for Jesus. Repentance is for the believer, not the unbeliever. Your interpretation of repentance is obviously different from mine.
God bless!
When I first heard the belief that Jesus was speaking of natural birth in this passage, I thought it was heretical. After studying it, I realized the context of the conversation was regarding natural versus spiritual birth. I respect Bro. Bernard very much, but I do not fully agree with his interpretation of this passage. Water baptism by full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ does not hinge on this passage. That doctrine is established elsewhere. Immediately following John 3:5, Jesus says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (v. 6). In this context with Jesus’ words that are longer than one verse, “water” correlates to “flesh” and “Spirit” to “Spirit.” To believe that the water in this passage refers to flesh does not require a denial of the necessity of water baptism. And I also believe a case can be made for a symbolization of baptism in this passage because Scripture carries layers of truth. But we do not identify with Jesus’ birth in baptism; we identify with His burial. Water baptism is not a birth; it’s a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).
I don’t know why so many preachers are always saying, born of the water. The word, the, is not found in front of the word water. It is born of water, not born of the water. I think this is one of the most misquoted scriptures in Pentecost.
Born of the water is the proper interpretation of what born of water is.
The Word "of", according to the new testaments original Greek, means " source of".
Titus 3:5
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”
The real question is God a Ghost/Spirit.?????
Yes, God is both a holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost. This is but one of the manifold excellencies of the highly elevated, technically regulated early modern English language employed in the authorized text of the scriptures (AV/KJV), and it's why most Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals still hold the King James Bible as God's word in the English tongue. A 'ghost' is the spirit of a deceased person. To distinguish between the Spirit in creation and the Spirit poured out upon all flesh in the same resurrection power through which our Lord Jesus Christ-the everlasting Father in the Word that was with God and was God in beginning that was made and is come in the flesh-laid down his own life and raised himself from the grave, we find that of the 96 instances in which the word for ever settled in heaven is translated into the variations of the Greek phrase 'pneumatos hagios', 90 of those contexts are directly referring to the work of the spirit as our Counselor and Comforter in that same resurrection power by which we are buried with Christ and raised to the newness of life, thus it is translated "Holy Ghost" in the language of our English tongue. In the other six instances, it is rendered "holy Spirit" five times and "Holy Spirit" but once.
@@jamesarthurreed
The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was Greek - not English.
You should be following King Jesus - Not King James. How arrogant of him to put his own name on the Word of God.??? and how stupid of us to follow him without question.???
You're speaking on God's behalf when God hasn't spoken to you, even if you do Speak in Tongues - are you listening, "My Sheep Hear My Voice"..
.
Here's a quick rundown:
...
Why do people make a religion out of Ghost ? Is God a Ghost or Spirit ?
.Matthew 7:21-23
.
OT - Rüakh HaKodesh = Spirit Holy - Ruakh is Breath of God (Elohim), .... God Breathed Life into Adam = Genesis 2:7 .
NT - Holy Spirit = hagios = Free from Sin - Spirit = pneuma - Breath of God..
Jesus (Yeshuah) Breathed Life into the Disciples and they Spoke in Tongues and Prophesied = John 20:22
Also on Pentecost - Acts 2:1-47.
The same Breath (Spirit ???) and the same God - Definitely not a Ghost.!
The Father and I (Jesus) are "One" (ev) = oneness, unity - John 10:30
.
In the KJV Wind, Spirit, Ghost are the exact same word in the Greek NT = pneuma,= Breath of God. John 3:8 .
..
We're suppose to follow King Jesus - Not King James ???
MATTHEW 15:14
@@rtoguidver3651 TL;DR. To address the response: Yes, I know that the Old Testament is written in ancient Hebrew in the original tongue, as well as Koine Greek for the New Testament: this is why I specifically referred to the Greek in which we find the phrase 'pneumatos hagios' translated as "Holy Ghost". Before his incarnation, God, who is a Spirit, was preparing man for his coming in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; in his incarnation, he gives himself to us in the outpouring of the Spirit in his work as the Holy Ghost given, which emphases the fullness of his resurrection power. In the Old Testament, the phrase 'holy spirit' appears but once and 'holy Spirit' twice, and in these contexts, this is the perfect translation inasmuch as this was before the finished work of Christ on the cross shedding his, God's own, precious blood unto death and giving up the ghost, the basis for the giving of the Holy Ghost. The issue is that neither the Hebrew nor Greek languages makes a distinction between a "spirit" or a "ghost", requiring context to discern whether the spirit in question is the spirit of a living or deceased person, while the language of the English tongue does, God giving us this ideographic and linguistic feature in our tongue and it being used in the scriptures as we see in the AV/KJV.
Inasmuch as this discussion revolves around the application of the doctrines of inspiration, translation and preservation as they relate to differences in the semantic and ideographic fields of the languages of the tongues used in recording the scriptures, I have to address each of these in turn in order to explain why I believe what I believe, so this will be a longer response. Given the length of this reply and that I've used the language of the AV/KJV, I've not included the references for the relevant passages of scripture, and even as did the Bereans, one can search the scriptures to see whether these things be so, but with the advantage of looking them up using a word search at their convenience. If any particular point seems of doubt, I can provide clarifications and further explanations as requested.
In the doctrine of inspiration, we see that the Spirit of God "breathes" the word for ever settled in heaven into the minds of holy men, so superintending their thoughts and thought processes such that even with their innate human fallibility and disparate cultures and levels of education, they wrote the words that God wanted written such that those words, while being truly their own and reflective of their unique human personalities, are just as truly God's own words without any admixture of error as if he himself had wrote them without any human involvement. In this we see a picture of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, he who is very God and very man to whom the Spirit is given without measure as his "human" spirit, in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, being the perfect union of God and man as the Son of God and Son of man reflected in the scriptures which speak of him.
In the doctrine of translation, we see that the same LORD God Almighty that gave us the very thought processes that enable linguistic communication and confused the language of man at the tower of Babel incident controls the processes by which the tongues of men are formed and evolves, including the rise and fall of nations and the setting of the boundaries of the same, turning the the hearts of kings in his hand as the rivers of water, causing men to influence each other in the progressive development of their use of language in their respective tongues. In this, God fashioned and fitted the tongues of ancient Hebrew (with Aramaic), Koine Greek and early modern English to be the perfect carriers of the word for ever settled in heaven in the inspired scriptures. Even with their different ideographic and semantic fields, the Received Text of the scriptures agree perfectly with each other, these differences shewing forth relationships between various passages of scripture that we otherwise might miss. In this we see another picture of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word that was with God and was God in the beginning, the light of the world that is the light of men, being given to all in the baptism with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance as witness to overcoming the division of Babel reflected in the scriptures in the English tongue perfectly agreeing with the rest of the Received Text of the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek.
In the doctrine of preservation, we see that the word which is for ever settled in heaven cannot be broken, that the word is pure and preserved, that it will not go out and return void, accomplishing the purpose to which it is set, and that the scriptures once given cannot be corrupted. That the scriptures are given by inspiration through holy men is concomitant with them being preserved by holy men, those who not loving not their lives unto the death having their blood shed as martyrs by those who would attempt to steal and corrupt the scriptures in their attempt to blind and deafen the eyes and ears of men. There will always be the pure and preserved word of God in the scriptures available to those who would worship and serve God in obedience to the form of sound doctrine of the faith once delivered to the saints, and we will find the true scriptures in the hands of those who are obeying them. In this we see another picture of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world who was obedient even unto death, in his being raised from the dead after three days, his body of flesh not having seen corruption reflected in the scriptures having many verifiable witnesses to their incorruptibility and steadfastness.
Your argument that those of us Received Text Bible believers in believing the word of God in the English scriptures of the AV/KJV are following "King James" rather than King Jesus is specious at best. This is no different than claiming that those who hold to the scriptures in the New Testament are followers of Paul, while the Jews are in the better place of following Moses, which they claim of themselves today, and is just as ludicrous as some Dispensationalist Cessationists claiming doctrinal authority and superiority in that they follow Paul as the "apostle to the Gentiles" who they suppose preached the true "gospel of Christ" for "the church age" while those who are Continuationists follow "another gospel", the "gospel of the kingdom", which was only for the Jews, as preached by Peter, James and John, the "apostles to the Jews". Paul's epistle to the Galatians makes it clear that there is but one gospel by which men are saved, which gospel the scriptures itself preached to Abraham and his belief in which was accounted to him for righteousness, and Luke confirms this in his second treatise to Theophilus ("Acts") in which he witnesses to all the apostles and disciples preaching the same gospel of Christ and plan of salvation in repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ to both the Jews and the Greeks as affirmed by Paul. James I, as the king of England and Scotland, didn't put his name on the Bible in English, he only authorized the work that produced it, which is why I made explicit reference to the "authorized text", always saying AV/KJV to note this, and while I honor him in his desire to purify the translation of the scriptures available in the English tongue, this is in no way me "following" him over Jesus.
While you may not realize it at this time, yours is a subtle attack on the scriptures, as if what many colloquially call the "King James Bible" in honor of the work that James authorized in purifying the scriptures in the English tongue somehow discredits that work. Call it whatever you will, but the AV/KJV/KJB using the English language grammar, vocabulary and idioms employed therein is in perfect agreement with the rest of the Received Text of the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. I used to be of the same errant opinion, having been schooled in and throughly programmed to the use of philosophy and vain deceits, after the traditions of men, and after the rudiments of the world, in eisegeting the doctrines of men and devils into the text even as I blasphemed in ultimately denying the sound doctrines of inspiration, translation and preservation, as do most who have been spiritually raised in either Roman or Protestant Catholic Churchianity or influenced by their thought. As a child and through most of my adult life, I was taught that while the AV/KJV was a "good" translation of an otherwise corrupt and inadequate text, it couldn't be fully trusted in all matters of doctrine and tradition, and that one needs to go back to the "original languages" in "better" translations of "better" manuscripts to really understand the fullness of what God was "really" trying to say. I vehemently used to attack what I was taught to see as "errors" in the translation that is the AV/KJV, and in hindsight, this was under the influence of devils and unclean spirits imparted to me be the laying on of hands by equally bound and afflicted men as I sat under their errant teaching.
While reading and studying the scriptures in all three tongues can greatly increase our knowledge of the scriptures, the AV/KJV is perfect and entire in its sufficiency for those who only know English. God in his grace and mercy has opened my eyes to the gross errors of both King James Onlyism and Original Autograph Onlyism, bringing me back to his word in the scriptures in the English tongue in the Received Text of the AV/KJV, even as he first brought me to the truth of his word in the scriptures in the Received Text of the scriptures in the Masoretic Hebrew and Byzantine Majority Koine Greek as recognized and collated by the translators of the AV/KJV. I pray that he does the same for you.
Respectfully disagree…Jesus is breaking it down for him to understand and Jesus is referring to the first birth, the physical, then the second birth, the spiritual. Water baptism is an “action” that we take. There is no “action” that we can ever take that will get us to heaven. If you believe that you have to be baptized to get to heaven then basically you’re saying 50% of your trust is an action you take and 50% trust in Jesus. 100% of salvation is from Jesus and not from us. There is no action that we could ever take that could get us into heaven outside of accepting the free gift Jesus gives us. The theif on the cross was told by Jesus that he would be in paradise with him. He did not get baptized yet the theif was in paradise with Jesus. I personally believe that many of us tend to read the Bible and want to infer our own personal beliefs in the translation instead of understanding the translation as it was given at that time. Many tend to use their beliefs to back up the Word. Instead we use the Word to back up or build our beliefs. Some will even hold on tight to a belief they have formed, even if it was wrong. They put their identity in that wrong belief and allow pride to blind them. They try hard to find justification in that belief and can twist or misread something just to prove themselves or their belief right. What is the issue in people admitting fault or stepping outside of themselves and objectively looking at a passage? Much like a scientist would look at a test they are preforming. What is the harm at admitting a mistake? There is a fine line between pride and confidence on an issue. (By the way, not referring to anyone in general here just an on going thought). Not trying to create an argument here it’s just a simple thought. The main thing is that we know that we must be saved and accept Christ as our savior! Blessings and Peace!!
I didn't think Dr. Benard effectively argued this one. Firstly, saying that the majority of the church world believes something and using that as evidence is self defeating. After all, the majority of the church is trinitarian and we are oneness. We are arguing that they're wrong.
Secondly, you didn't really negate the natural birth argument. You tip toed around it.
I don't think this was an effective argument this time.
Jesus clearly taught water baptism and Spirit of God in the new birth. The passage has nothing to do with natural birth. If it does then people born of cesarean surgery are disqualified
He very clearly qualified it by stating “just because the majority of the church world believes something doesn’t make it true or untrue” He was pointing the facts out for historical context. I felt he was very effective as usual. Remember He is trying to funnel his vast knowledge of the Word into a small amount of time to fit YT format
@brentcunningham5580 then that makes the point moot. The point of bringing that is to qualify the belief by utilizing church history and tradition to support the theology. We are defying "church tradition" by preaching oneness theology. It is a self defeating argument in this context. And his supporting scriptures on this do not beat out what he's saying. He is usually great, but on this he is wrong.
@@pill677 according to scripture itself, how is he wrong?
All Trinity people who refuse obeying Acts, 2:38 but Lip speak they're Love for Jesus are all Hypocrits,,,😢😢😢😢😢
Acts 2:38 Repent, Baptized, Holy Spirit.!
Without this you go to Hell, are you willing to take that chance.???
God says what he means and means what he says.
I think water does mean natural birth. The very next verse (John 3:6) Jesus says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The water is a reference to the flesh. You need the second, spiritual birth to enter the kingdom of God.
The Bible teaches in many places on being water baptized. Mark 16:16 is a start.
Read the book of Acts. Also:
Romans 6
Colossians 2
1Peter 3: 20=21
Acts 2:38
@@samename6479 Very good, but that's not what John 3:5 is about.
Amen, brother.
If water baptism wasn't what Jesus was teaching and specifically meant natural birth then it wouldn't need to be said. Every human being is naturally born unless they were delivered by cesarean surgery.
Which is incredibly ignorant because then those born of cesarean can never be born again.
Jesus clearly taught water baptism and the Spirit of God.
That's how Necodemus understood when Jesus said "You must be born again!". He thought Jesus was referring to a natural birth, but Jesus explains further that born again means to be born in water in and the Spirit.