Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Romans 10 gives a scenario that states that believing Jesus was raised by the Father and confessing Jesus's Lordship definitely will save a person, and it does not mention baptism at all....... just something to think about. Of course you have to believe in Christ. If you don't believe in Christ than the only thing that is going to happen when you are baptized is you will get wet. Someone that doesn't believe is not going to ask to be baptized. The other point I would make regarding Paul or any other NT writer is, if Jesus says something I'm going with that over anything someone else says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The thief on the cross was not baptized. Was he saved? I addressed this two posts ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted September 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2014 Baptism is being obedient to the Lord. Jesus did everything that needed to be done for salvation. One is first saved, then baptized. If you look at John 3:5-8 again, there is no mention of baptism. Nicodemus knew Jesus was speaking of birth, which is why he asked how a person can enter his mothers womb again. Nicodemus never asked about water baptism, and Jesus never refereed to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The intention to be baptized was there. So I would have to think yes. If he rejected baptism Than I would say he would be in grave danger. For me it's clear that we are to be born again by water AND the Spirit. That is what man is bound to. God can choose to save in any manner he sees fit. But we are not free to choose in what manner we are to be saved. Jesus told Necudemus very clearly when asked. Same scenario but the young man dies before he can make that proclamation of faith. He gets into that car accident on his way to Church that day. I would again think yes he would likely be saved. Both those examples are exoordanary ( both car accident scenarios) circumstances and are not the norm. The thief on the cross didn't get baptized. Does that mean we reject baptism. I say no again that was an exoordanary circumstance. Necodimus was in no danger of being run over by a car and was not nailed to a cross therefore under ordanary circumstances we are to be baptized in order to be saved. There are a number of theological problems, here. First of all, you are approaching "water" one dimensionally. You are running with an assumption that "water" MUST mean baptism. Can you show from the text that "water" cannot mean anything but water baptism? Secondly, there are no extra-ordinary ways to be saved. What you are proposing is that God makes special concessions and that one doesn't necessarily have to be saved in one particular way. You are essentially proposing more than one plan of salvation. If a person accepts Jesus on an airplane, and the plane crashes, then according to you, God has another plan of salvation for people who don't have access to water. The thief on the cross is not an extra-ordinary circumstance. That thief accepted Jesus while still under the OT economy. The NT didn't come into effect until after Jesus said, "it is finished" and died. Another problem for you is that you can show no OT parallel to water baptism in terms of salvation. Salvation in the OT didn't require baptism. People were not saved by immersion or sacrifices or anything else. It was always by grace through faith. Abraham was justified by faith alone and Paul said in Romans 4 that we are justified the same way Abraham was. If Baptism was required for salvation, we should see it included in every discussion about in the NT about how to be saved. But we don't. The bottom line is that you really don't have a truly biblical case to be made that baptism saves. You can try to manipulate certain Scriptures to make it appear that way, but you cannot make your case based on good theology and sound hermeneutic treatment. You are teaching a false doctrine and a false gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted September 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2014 I would disagree that born of water is referring to baptism, but of being born of woman. I respectfully disagree because Necudemus specifically asks Jesus how can one return to the womb and be born again. To which Jesus says you need to be born again of water and the Spirit. It's very clear that Jesus is not talking about being born from a woman. Sorry but your paraphrasing is incorrect. John 3:There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 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. Jesus never said 'born again of water', but born of water. That is a big difference. We are born once of water, and once of Spirit. Te verses go on with the parallel. Born of water is born of flesh and born of Spirit is spirit. That meaning is clear. There are two potential births. The first is of water and is being born of flesh, from the mother. The second is being born again, and is of the Spirit, from the Holy Spirit. Why this is so important in context is that Nicodemus was Jewish, and taught the Jewish people. The belief was that being born of the flesh for Nicodemus was being born Jewish. Nic thought and taught that being born Jewish ensured a life in the 'world to come', or the Messianic age. Jesus was explaining that simple birth of the flesh, being Jewish, did not earn a person a place in the 'world to come', but one must be born of the Spirit, born from above, born again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Qnts2's I agree that the Jews believed that salvation was for them alone. To say Jesus is talking about amniotic fluid and the spirit sounds bizarre to me and does not fit the context of the scripture as a whole. Throughout the OT and NT water is shown to be for cleansing. Again, the old Jewish cleansining rituals were not enough and Jesus is saying that here. Water alone no longer cleanses you, you also need the spirit. The idea of the womb is rebuked by Christ when Nicodemus brings iT up. And to say the water is amniotic fluid does not carry any weight ( I could of used a pun here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 25, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,106 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,840 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2014 Qnts2's I agree that the Jews believed that salvation was for them alone. To say Jesus is talking about amniotic fluid and the spirit sounds bizarre to me and does not fit the context of the scripture as a whole. Throughout the OT and NT water is shown to be for cleansing. Again, the old Jewish cleansining rituals were not enough and Jesus is saying that here. Water alone no longer cleanses you, you also need the spirit. The idea of the womb is rebuked by Christ when Nicodemus brings iT up. And to say the water is amniotic fluid does not carry any weight ( I could of used a pun here). It appears that myself and most of my friends would disagree..... but that's ok... On to other subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted September 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2014 Qnts2's I agree that the Jews believed that salvation was for them alone. To say Jesus is talking about amniotic fluid and the spirit sounds bizarre to me and does not fit the context of the scripture as a whole. Throughout the OT and NT water is shown to be for cleansing. Again, the old Jewish cleansining rituals were not enough and Jesus is saying that here. Water alone no longer cleanses you, you also need the spirit. The idea of the womb is rebuked by Christ when Nicodemus brings iT up. And to say the water is amniotic fluid does not carry any weight ( I could of used a pun here). Being familiar personally with the OT laws concerning the ritual baths, Jesus is not talking about the ritual baths. Since the ritual baths were simply a part of the 'cleansing' rituals, (by the way, saying cleansing rituals is strange, as there is so much more to it and really, no such terminology), for the entire law has to do with 'cleansing rituals'. What you are proposing makes no sense, from the context of the OT. But, the physical birth vs spiritual birth is in perfect line, and Jesus even expounds on that topic. Nicodemus understands what Jesus is saying based on the physical birth and Jesus even chides Nicodemus as a teacher of Israel to need an explanation of born from above. It is clearly speaking about two different births. The ritual baths are not about births. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 It appears that myself and most of my friends would disagree..... but that's ok... On to other subjects. This is not the first thread where I'm grossly in the minority and I am fine with that. I am enjoying all the discussion and opposing view points. I forces me to grow as a person and I wouldn't have it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Qnts2's I agree that the Jews believed that salvation was for them alone. To say Jesus is talking about amniotic fluid and the spirit sounds bizarre to me and does not fit the context of the scripture as a whole. Throughout the OT and NT water is shown to be for cleansing. Again, the old Jewish cleansining rituals were not enough and Jesus is saying that here. Water alone no longer cleanses you, you also need the spirit. The idea of the womb is rebuked by Christ when Nicodemus brings iT up. And to say the water is amniotic fluid does not carry any weight ( I could of used a pun here). Back in OT times, "salvation" was corporate, not individual. Cleans with water was a metaphor for the renewal and restoration of Israel. It had nothing to do with baptism. baptism wasn't associated with salvation during Jesus' time, so there is no way the original audience would have thought in those terms. For that reason, "water" doesn't refer to baptism in the context of salvation. What you seem to be doing is reading church theology back into the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts