|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 13, 2022 8:23:06 GMT -8
Born of water refers to water baptism and the Bible makes it clear that water baptism saves for it is in water baptism that God does the work of removing the body of sins. No you put baptism in a verse that doesn't say baptism, John talks about baptism later in the chapter if you keep reading but you cant change insert your own word and use it to try contradict clear verses like Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins But the verse "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." you need to deal with the "and of Spirit or you cant enter the kingdom of God or you get below..... No one today is baptized with the HS. Neither pronoun "you" in Matt 3:11 refers to anyone today. The fulfillment of John's words of Mt 3:11 as to whom Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit is found in Acts 1:1-5 where Christ was speaking to His Apostles promising them baptism with the HS and not anyone today. Baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel that was fulfilled therefore ended, ceased some 2000 years ago. People today can claim they were baptized with the HS but cannot provide any Biblical proof. Your saying no-one can enter the kingdom today, but the born again are already in the kingdom because the kingdom of God is within you. Jesus said "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Transformed from darkness to light Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. See that Light, Jesus Is the Light The Bible makes belief (Jn 8:24) repentance (Lk 13:3) confession (Mt 10:32-33) and baptism (Mk 16:16) living faithfully (Rev 2:10) conditions of being saved. Those who believe in eternal security cite verses OUT OF CONTEXT then read the idea of eternal security into the out of context verse while giving no proof. Is eternal security in Gods promises? but how can you prove the faith of someone else? would you like the sign of Jonah? Those things you could call sanctification or discipleship or even Love Today is the day of salvation the gospel is how you are saved 1 Corinthians 15 "born of water" is a reference to water baptism. Jn 3:5-----------Spirit +++++++++++ water >>>>>>>>>> in the kingdom 1Cor 12;13-----Spirit +++++++++++ baptized >>>>>>>> in the body Tts 3:5 -------Holy Ghost ++++++ washing of reg. >>>>>> saved The new birth therefore consists of water baptism and one MUST be born again making water baptism essential. No one was ever commanded he must be spirit baptized to be saved yet commanded to be water baptized (Acts 10:47-48). The human administered water baptism of the great commission saves and is how disciples are made. The two elements in the new birth are water and Spirit. The role of water is water baptism. The role of the Spirit is the Spirit is the author of the word which instructs men on how to be saved. And those who obey the gospel word in being baptized are in that sense said to be begotten through the gospel (1 Cor 4:15) born again through the word of God (1 Pet 1:23) begat with the word (James 1:18). Note also: Jn 3:5-----------born of water and spirit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter the kingdom Matt 7:21-------doeth the will of the Father >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter the kingdom Since there is but one way to be saved, no alternatives, then there MUST be a definite connection between being born again of water and spirit and DOING the will of the Father. God has commanded water baptism and those that DOETH the will of God by being water baptized/born again are the ones who enter the kingdom. Therefore man is not completely passive in the new birth, man must submit himself to God in water baptism where then God removes the body of sin then one walks in newness of life Rom 6:4. If spirit baptism is how one is saved/born again, then how does God decide whom He will or will not baptized with the Spirit? And if one has not been spirit baptized therefore unborn and lost, it must be God's fault, culpabilty since the new birth is out of the control of man. Yet man has been commanded to be water baptized, therefore those not is their own fault and culpability. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 13, 2022 8:39:17 GMT -8
The information in my post was taken from the great commission, Mk 16:15-16; Matt 28:19-20. Your remarks about the Holy Spirit are not from the Bible. : commanded saves administered by humans how disciples are made is to be taught lasts till the end of time What I posted above about the great commission baptism is from Mark 16:15-16 and Matt 28:19-20 which makes this the one baptism of Eph 4:5 for NONE of these things are ever said about some "spirit baptism". |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 13, 2022 9:01:45 GMT -8
Your remarks about the Holy Spirit are not from the Bible. : commanded saves administered by humans how disciples are made is to be taught lasts till the end of time What I posted above about the great commission baptism is from Mark 16:15-16 and Matt 28:19-20 which makes this the one baptism of Eph 4:5 for NONE of these things are ever said about some "spirit baptism". Then you are denying Spirit Baptism ? |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 13, 2022 10:34:06 GMT -8
Born of water refers to water baptism and the Bible makes it clear that water baptism saves for it is in water baptism that God does the work of removing the body of sins. No one today is baptized with the HS. Neither pronoun "you" in Matt 3:11 refers to anyone today. The fulfillment of John's words of Mt 3:11 as to whom Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit is found in Acts 1:1-5 where Christ was speaking to His Apostles promising them baptism with the HS and not anyone today. Baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel that was fulfilled therefore ended, ceased some 2000 years ago. People today can claim they were baptized with the HS but cannot provide any Biblical proof. The Bible makes belief (Jn 8:24) repentance (Lk 13:3) confession (Mt 10:32-33) and baptism (Mk 16:16) living faithfully (Rev 2:10) conditions of being saved. Those who believe in eternal security cite verses OUT OF CONTEXT then read the idea of eternal security into the out of context verse while giving no proof. Ok, so you do deny Spirit Baptism. If you don`t mind, what is your denominational affiliation? Northern Baptist here. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 13, 2022 10:42:03 GMT -8
|
|
yacker
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by yacker on Sept 14, 2022 2:35:24 GMT -8
If spirit baptism is how one is saved/born again, then how does God decide whom He will or will not baptized with the Spirit? And if one has not been spirit baptized therefore unborn and lost, it must be God's fault, culpabilty since the new birth is out of the control of man. Yet man has been commanded to be water baptized, therefore those not is their own fault and culpability. Nonsense haven't you heard John 3:1616 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Seen its God we are talking about he can do whatever he wants for his will and good pleasure, kind of the meaning of "God" and "Almighty" but God is Also "Righteous" so he always does what is right Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Then for discussions sake throw in John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. So God is in charge and does what what's right, It also says that "God is Love" so how did God show his Love "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" So here is where is see the problem John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. so we need to deal with your deeds all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death so what are you going to do?, hopefully it would lead you the cross where they can be dealt with, otherwise its 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 14, 2022 3:24:37 GMT -8
Baptism of the great commission: commanded saves administered by humans how disciples are made is to be taught lasts till the end of time What I posted above about the great commission baptism is from Mark 16:15-16 and Matt 28:19-20 which makes this the one baptism of Eph 4:5 for NONE of these things are ever said about some "spirit baptism". Then you are denying Spirit Baptism ? Yes, it is not possible that "spirit baptism" can be the baptism of Christ's great commission. No one today has been promised nor commanded to be baptized with the HS and the idea of salvation being baptized with the HS puts culpability upon God. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 14, 2022 3:26:10 GMT -8
Born of water refers to water baptism and the Bible makes it clear that water baptism saves for it is in water baptism that God does the work of removing the body of sins. No one today is baptized with the HS. Neither pronoun "you" in Matt 3:11 refers to anyone today. The fulfillment of John's words of Mt 3:11 as to whom Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit is found in Acts 1:1-5 where Christ was speaking to His Apostles promising them baptism with the HS and not anyone today. Baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel that was fulfilled therefore ended, ceased some 2000 years ago. People today can claim they were baptized with the HS but cannot provide any Biblical proof. The Bible makes belief (Jn 8:24) repentance (Lk 13:3) confession (Mt 10:32-33) and baptism (Mk 16:16) living faithfully (Rev 2:10) conditions of being saved. Those who believe in eternal security cite verses OUT OF CONTEXT then read the idea of eternal security into the out of context verse while giving no proof. Ok, so you do deny Spirit Baptism. If you don`t mind, what is your denominational affiliation? Northern Baptist here. I'm a member of the church of Christ, not any denomination. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 14, 2022 3:54:06 GMT -8
It was understood for centuries after the Apostles that born of water referred to water baptism: " To what does the word “water” refer in John 3:5? For many centuries following the apostolic age, there was no controversy concerning the significance of water in this passage.
The “church fathers” clearly understood it to denote baptism. The testimony of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc., could be cited to establish this point.
In his monumental work, History of Infant Baptism, William Wall, a leading scholar in the Church of England, asserted that not a single writer of antiquity denied the identification of the “water” of John 3:5 with baptism. He suggested that John Calvin was the first to disassociate the two items, and that Calvin even conceded that his interpretation was “new” (1862, 443).
Of course, subsequent to Calvin, numerous denominational clergymen have denied that baptism is an element of the new birth. This due, of course, to their doctrinal bias against the necessity of immersion for the remission of sins.
On the other hand, many scholars concede that the water of this passage is an allusion to baptism—though they would deny that baptism is an essential condition for salvation.
Under the term hudor (“water”), William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich note: “Of Christian baptism, the new birth . . . Jn. 3:5” (1967, 840).
It is interesting to reflect upon some of the bizarre speculations that have been offered in order to eliminate water baptism from this context. Here are a few of the novel ideas which attempt to identify the water as something other than baptism." www.christiancourier.com/articles/115-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-born-again-christianThe link you provided ('Got Questions') speculated born of water refers to the physical birth but gives no proof at all. First, when Christ was speaking of a new birth, He was speaking of a type of birth Nicodemus had NOT experienced, Nicodemus had already experienced the physical birth. Secondly, if born or water refers to the physical birth, then it makes absolutely no sense at all for Christ to tell Nicodemus "you must be physically born" as if Christ did not understand a fully grown adult man as Nicodemus had not yet been physically born..... " Occasionally, it is asserted that the “water” of John 3:5 is a reference to the amniotic fluid that flows from the mother’s body prior to birth.
Such a wild view is easily refuted by the fact that whatever the new birth process was, the Jewish ruler had not yet experienced it. Obviously, however, he had been born of his mother already!
Moreover, such a theory would suggest that anyone delivered by cesarean section (no water in that procedure) would be ineligible to enter the kingdom of God!"
Some have suggested that water is but a symbol for the Spirit himself (cf. Bogard 1938, 138).
That would hardly be the case, since the Spirit is already mentioned in the passage. The Lord was not arguing that unless one “be born of Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” www.christiancourier.com/articles/115-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-born-again-christian |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 14, 2022 3:59:06 GMT -8
If spirit baptism is how one is saved/born again, then how does God decide whom He will or will not baptized with the Spirit? And if one has not been spirit baptized therefore unborn and lost, it must be God's fault, culpability since the new birth is out of the control of man. Yet man has been commanded to be water baptized, therefore those not is their own fault and culpability. Nonsense haven't you heard John 3:1616 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Seen its God we are talking about he can do whatever he wants for his will and good pleasure, kind of the meaning of "God" and "Almighty" but God is Also "Righteous" so he always does what is right Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Then for discussions sake throw in John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. So God is in charge and does what what's right, It also says that "God is Love" so how did God show his Love "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" So here is where is see the problem John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. so we need to deal with your deeds all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death so what are you going to do?, hopefully it would lead you the cross where they can be dealt with, otherwise its 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35) therefore if God baptized one person with the HS saving that person but not another, then God had respecter to one person over another. Since being baptized with the HS is OUT OF THE CONTROL of man, then those not baptized with the HS would be the fault, culpability of God. I see nothing you posted that resolves these issues. You posted that God "can do whatever he wants" yet God cannot go against His own nature, He cannot be a respecter of persons or be culpability in causing men to be lost against their will. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 14, 2022 6:08:52 GMT -8
It was understood for centuries after the Apostles that born of water referred to water baptism: " To what does the word “water” refer in John 3:5? For many centuries following the apostolic age, there was no controversy concerning the significance of water in this passage.
The “church fathers” clearly understood it to denote baptism. The testimony of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc., could be cited to establish this point.
In his monumental work, History of Infant Baptism, William Wall, a leading scholar in the Church of England, asserted that not a single writer of antiquity denied the identification of the “water” of John 3:5 with baptism. He suggested that John Calvin was the first to disassociate the two items, and that Calvin even conceded that his interpretation was “new” (1862, 443).
Of course, subsequent to Calvin, numerous denominational clergymen have denied that baptism is an element of the new birth. This due, of course, to their doctrinal bias against the necessity of immersion for the remission of sins.
On the other hand, many scholars concede that the water of this passage is an allusion to baptism—though they would deny that baptism is an essential condition for salvation.
Under the term hudor (“water”), William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich note: “Of Christian baptism, the new birth . . . Jn. 3:5” (1967, 840).
It is interesting to reflect upon some of the bizarre speculations that have been offered in order to eliminate water baptism from this context. Here are a few of the novel ideas which attempt to identify the water as something other than baptism." www.christiancourier.com/articles/115-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-born-again-christianThe link you provided ('Got Questions') speculated born of water refers to the physical birth but gives no proof at all. First, when Christ was speaking of a new birth, He was speaking of a type of birth Nicodemus had NOT experienced, Nicodemus had already experienced the physical birth. Secondly, if born or water refers to the physical birth, then it makes absolutely no sense at all for Christ to tell Nicodemus "you must be physically born" as if Christ did not understand a fully grown adult man as Nicodemus had not yet been physically born..... " Occasionally, it is asserted that the “water” of John 3:5 is a reference to the amniotic fluid that flows from the mother’s body prior to birth.
Such a wild view is easily refuted by the fact that whatever the new birth process was, the Jewish ruler had not yet experienced it. Obviously, however, he had been born of his mother already!
Moreover, such a theory would suggest that anyone delivered by cesarean section (no water in that procedure) would be ineligible to enter the kingdom of God!"
Some have suggested that water is but a symbol for the Spirit himself (cf. Bogard 1938, 138).
That would hardly be the case, since the Spirit is already mentioned in the passage. The Lord was not arguing that unless one “be born of Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” www.christiancourier.com/articles/115-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-born-again-christianThe article does not speculate that it is about physical birth. In fact it denys that is a possibility so I guess you didn`t really read it. I appriciate your straightforwardness though. |
|
yacker
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by yacker on Sept 14, 2022 20:29:03 GMT -8
God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35) therefore if God baptized one person with the HS saving that person but not another, then God had respecter to one person over another. Since being baptized with the HS is OUT OF THE CONTROL of man, then those not baptized with the HS would be the fault, culpability of God. I see nothing you posted that resolves these issues. You posted that God "can do whatever he wants" yet God cannot go against His own nature, He cannot be a respecter of persons or be culpability in causing men to be lost against their will. You need to be careful when dealing with the character of God, God offers it freely as Grace but not all come, God allows people choices and there are consequences for choices Hear is what the bible says If Jesus be lifted up he will draw all men to him John 3:16 says For "God so loved the world" that "whosesoever believes", God will make them a new creation in Christ and faith "in Christ" comes by hearing "the Gospel" And it says that TODAY is the day of salvation So the problem isn't with God its with man, And I don't see God forcing anyone to live with Jesus that don't love him and would rather kill him, Why would a father do that to their Son |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 15, 2022 7:43:32 GMT -8
God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35) therefore if God baptized one person with the HS saving that person but not another, then God had respecter to one person over another. Since being baptized with the HS is OUT OF THE CONTROL of man, then those not baptized with the HS would be the fault, culpability of God. I see nothing you posted that resolves these issues. You posted that God "can do whatever he wants" yet God cannot go against His own nature, He cannot be a respecter of persons or be culpability in causing men to be lost against their will. You need to be careful when dealing with the character of God, God offers it freely as Grace but not all come, God allows people choices and there are consequences for choices Hear is what the bible says If Jesus be lifted up he will draw all men to him John 3:16 says For "God so loved the world" that "whosesoever believes", God will make them a new creation in Christ and faith "in Christ" comes by hearing "the Gospel" And it says that TODAY is the day of salvation So the problem isn't with God its with man, And I don't see God forcing anyone to live with Jesus that don't love him and would rather kill him, Why would a father do that to their Son Actually, one needs to be careful with their theological biases, especially biases that puts God in a position of being a respecter of persons and making God culpable for the lost as the idea of monergism does. If baptism with the HS is necessary to be saved as some may claim, and being baptized with the HS is out of the control/choice of man and God alone determines who will or will not be baptized with the HS, then that puts God in a position of choosing 'winners and losers" having respect for those who were chosen to be winners and makes God culpable for the losers. Jn 3:16 does say "whosoever believeth" meaning man chooses for himself to believe or to perish, therefore God has no culpability in man's choices nor has respect of person's when man is choosing for himself to be saved or lost. Since water baptism as been commanded and it saves, then man chooses for himself to be water baptized and be saved or chooses to not be and be lost. And therefore again, God has no culpability nor has respect of persons when it comes to man making the choices. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 15, 2022 7:59:01 GMT -8
It was understood for centuries after the Apostles that born of water referred to water baptism: " To what does the word “water” refer in John 3:5? For many centuries following the apostolic age, there was no controversy concerning the significance of water in this passage.
The “church fathers” clearly understood it to denote baptism. The testimony of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc., could be cited to establish this point.
In his monumental work, History of Infant Baptism, William Wall, a leading scholar in the Church of England, asserted that not a single writer of antiquity denied the identification of the “water” of John 3:5 with baptism. He suggested that John Calvin was the first to disassociate the two items, and that Calvin even conceded that his interpretation was “new” (1862, 443).
Of course, subsequent to Calvin, numerous denominational clergymen have denied that baptism is an element of the new birth. This due, of course, to their doctrinal bias against the necessity of immersion for the remission of sins.
On the other hand, many scholars concede that the water of this passage is an allusion to baptism—though they would deny that baptism is an essential condition for salvation.
Under the term hudor (“water”), William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich note: “Of Christian baptism, the new birth . . . Jn. 3:5” (1967, 840).
It is interesting to reflect upon some of the bizarre speculations that have been offered in order to eliminate water baptism from this context. Here are a few of the novel ideas which attempt to identify the water as something other than baptism." www.christiancourier.com/articles/115-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-born-again-christianThe link you provided ('Got Questions') speculated born of water refers to the physical birth but gives no proof at all. First, when Christ was speaking of a new birth, He was speaking of a type of birth Nicodemus had NOT experienced, Nicodemus had already experienced the physical birth. Secondly, if born or water refers to the physical birth, then it makes absolutely no sense at all for Christ to tell Nicodemus "you must be physically born" as if Christ did not understand a fully grown adult man as Nicodemus had not yet been physically born..... " Occasionally, it is asserted that the “water” of John 3:5 is a reference to the amniotic fluid that flows from the mother’s body prior to birth.
Such a wild view is easily refuted by the fact that whatever the new birth process was, the Jewish ruler had not yet experienced it. Obviously, however, he had been born of his mother already!
Moreover, such a theory would suggest that anyone delivered by cesarean section (no water in that procedure) would be ineligible to enter the kingdom of God!"
Some have suggested that water is but a symbol for the Spirit himself (cf. Bogard 1938, 138).
That would hardly be the case, since the Spirit is already mentioned in the passage. The Lord was not arguing that unless one “be born of Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” www.christiancourier.com/articles/115-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-born-again-christianThe article does not speculate that it is about physical birth. In fact it denys that is a possibility so I guess you didn`t really read it. I appriciate your straightforwardness though. The article puts forth the idea that some people speculate 'born of water" refers to the physical birth....here is a direct copy & paste quote from the article (my emp) " One perspective is that “born of water” refers to physical birth. Unborn babies float in a sack of amniotic fluid for nine months. When the time for birth arrives, that sack of water bursts, and the baby is born in a rush of water, entering the world as a new creature. This birth parallels being “born of the Spirit,” as a similar new birth occurs within our hearts (2 Corinthians 5:17). A person once-born has physical life; a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). Just as a baby contributes no effort to the birth process—the work is done by the mother—so it is with spiritual birth." This quote is what I DID read and responded to. I do not see where the article denied that possibility. Again, direct quite from the article (my emp) " Whichever perspective is correct, one thing is certain: Jesus was not teaching that one must be baptized in water in order to be saved. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the context, nor did Jesus ever imply that we must do anything to inherit eternal life but trust in Him in faith (John 3:16)." This quote is riddled with theological error but it does NOT deny the perspective that born of water refers to the physical birth. Seems maybe that you didn't read the article. What the article denies is the truth......that Jesus did command water baptism, those who DOETH the will of the Father are the ones who enter the kingdom nor did Jesus ever teach belief only saves in Jn 3:16. One verse theology can lead to error as it does in the article. Jn 3:16 is an important verse but it is not the only verse that deals with salvation. Jn 3:16 does not tell us all about there is to know about salvation, Rarely does just one verse exhaust all there is to know about a particular subject. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 15, 2022 8:13:25 GMT -8
The article does not speculate that it is about physical birth. In fact it denys that is a possibility so I guess you didn`t really read it. I appriciate your straightforwardness though. The article puts forth the idea that some people speculate 'born of water" refers to the physical birth....here is a direct copy & paste quote from the article (my emp) " One perspective is that “born of water” refers to physical birth. Unborn babies float in a sack of amniotic fluid for nine months. When the time for birth arrives, that sack of water bursts, and the baby is born in a rush of water, entering the world as a new creature. This birth parallels being “born of the Spirit,” as a similar new birth occurs within our hearts (2 Corinthians 5:17). A person once-born has physical life; a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). Just as a baby contributes no effort to the birth process—the work is done by the mother—so it is with spiritual birth." This quote is what I DID read and responded to. I do not see where the article denied that possibility. Again, direct quite from the article (my emp) " Whichever perspective is correct, one thing is certain: Jesus was not teaching that one must be baptized in water in order to be saved. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the context, nor did Jesus ever imply that we must do anything to inherit eternal life but trust in Him in faith (John 3:16)." This quote is riddled with theological error but it does NOT deny the perspective that born of water refers to the physical birth. Seems maybe that you didn't read the article. What the article denies is the truth......that Jesus did command water baptism, those who DOETH the will of the Father are the ones who enter the kingdom nor did Jesus ever teach belief only saves in Jn 3:16. One verse theology can lead to error as it does in the article. Jn 3:16 is an important verse but it is not the only verse that deals with salvation. Jn 3:16 does not tell us all about there is to know about salvation, Rarely does just one verse exhaust all there is to know about a particular subject. That`s a weird way to interpret phrases such as "was not teaching" and "nor did ever imply". Makes it hard to reason with you when you claim that those phrases are not a denial that it`s a possibility. "Whichever perspective is correct, one thing is certain: Jesus was not teaching that one must be baptized in water in order to be saved. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the context, nor did Jesus ever imply that we must do anything to inherit eternal life but trust in Him in faith (John 3:16). The emphasis of Jesus' words is on repentance and spiritual renewal—we need the “living water” Jesus later promised the woman at the well (John 4:10). Water baptism is an outward sign that we have given our lives to Jesus, but not a requirement for salvation (Luke 23:40–43)." |
|
