Baptism

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Shiloh are you saying that God's power is limited to what is in the Bible and he can not do anything unless its in the Bible?? Really is that going to be your position? God can ONLY do what is said in the Bible?

 

You see I don't think God has any limits at all... Perhaps your God is limited by what is written but mine is not.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh are you saying that God's power is limited to what is in the Bible and he can not do anything unless its in the Bible?? Really is that going to be your position? God can ONLY do what is said in the Bible?

 

You see I don't think God has any limits at all... Perhaps your God is limited by what is written but mine is not.

If God doesn't need to keep His word, then on what basis can we place any faith in Him?   By your logic He could abrogate our salvation tomorrow.   If God is so capricious that He promises one thing today, but takes it away tomorrow then why trust Him? 

 

You don't seem to understand the concept of God's omnipotence.  There are lots of things God can't do.  God can't lie, He can't break His promises, He can't die, etc.   God is limited to doing only what is in line with His character and divine attributes.  

 

The Bible is God's self-disclosure.   It tells us what He will and will not do, what is and is not like.  But what good is that if He decides to do what He said He would not do?  What is there to anchor your life and your heart to?   God gave us His word to reveal Himself to us.   So He has to be consistent with what is there, otherwise it would be impossible to have a relationship God, that is based on being able to put faith in Him.

 

So IF salvation were required for salvation, then we have to be able to trust that it is always true, and not just true when the situation lends itself to it.   The problem with your theology isn't about what God is limited or not limited to.   The problem with your theology is that it is an assault on God's integrity and faithfulness.  For y,ou God is unlimited to a degree that He can violate His own promises, and that isn't what the Bible says about God.  Your theology is based on emotional and not on sound theology and exegesis of Scripture. 

 

Again you have a false gospel if you believe that salvation is conditional on baptism.  What you are proposing is not the authentic New Testament Christian faith.

[JohnD]

I was water baptized by my father at a Church of Christ in 1969.

 

Folks thought I did not know what baptism was about because of my age, but I insisted I did know.

 

Turns out most folks don't know what water baptism is regardless of their age.

 

Water baptism is symbolic of the Spirit baptism that took place upon converting to Christ Jesus.

 

Some have misused it as a means of salvation, or as an initiation to a cliche denomination.

 

To some it is an eternal good luck charm.

 

Though the actual true baptism is only that of the Holy Spirit, water baptism is the symbolic outward testimony of that inward transformation. And in so doing we are buried with with Christ and raised to eternal life in him and belonging to him.

 

Isaiah 54:9-10 (KJV)
9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.

 

I weep when I read this passage. This is the eternal peace from the war we were born to with God... this is entering into the Sabbath Rest forever.

 

If your sons understand that Jesus created all things created in the beginning, that he became a man and laid down that life to save mankind, that he rose from the grave the third day so we may live with him forever and ever... and that by accepting Jesus as Lord of their lives (meaning they were bought with a price and are not their own anymore) and that they have spiritual gifts and callings to minister to the saints in conglomeration with getting people saved... then they have been Spirit baptized already and the outward symbolism of water baptism would be a very grand gesture / testimony. 

 

[Qnts2]

 

The same can be said about the water being flesh. You guys are doing the same thing. You are reading your theology into the text.

Where does it say flesh is water and water is flesh. You are guilty of what you are accusing me of.

Shiloh this comment was in response to Qnt2. About in the middle of his post he says the water is flesh, in on my phone and it's not easy to quote but I just checked and he does make that connection

 

 

I used scripture to show the parallels Jesus was making. Jesus mentioned water and spirit, and said a parallel verse which further explained, saying first flesh and then Spirit Those who are born of water, are born of flesh, and flesh is flesh. Those who are born of Spirit are Spirit, and Spirit is spirit. So, I did not say water is flesh. That parallel is in scripture. 

 

4     Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  

 

To me, nothing could be clearer. Nicodemus is asking, how can a man be born (flesh) a second time.

Jesus answers saying there are two births, one of water and one of the Spirit.

Jesus expounds and these two births.

 

In the end, what Jesus is saying is that there are two births. In order to enter the Kingdom of God, people need to be born twice.  One of flesh and the re-birth of the Spirit. Born again of the Spirit.    

[OneLight]

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).

 

Take scripture in the context it was given.  Twisting scripture comes when people try to apply to scripture a meaning that was never intended.  Tell me, can angles be saved?  It seems to me that a human, being born through water and blood, are the only creation that has been given the gift of salvation.  No other creation has been given this opportunity.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Neither has made the connection as how being born of water is flesh. How is being born of water mean being born from your mother. Im sorry but your paralleles are an incredible stretch.

Where else does Jesus say that being born of water is coming from your mother. Or where does anyone else say such a thing.

Jesus talks of water and spirit and where does wate and spirit appear together?

John 1.

It says that John the Baptist is BAPTIZING with WATER and then the SPIRIT descends upon Jesus.

Not sure about your mothers but mine was not water. Mine was flesh. I was born of flesh. When you get baptized you are born of water and spirit.

So again I'm being accused of something that is being done by others.

[Guest shiloh357]

Neither has made the connection as how being born of water is flesh. How is being born of water mean being born from your mother. Im sorry but your paralleles are an incredible stretch.

 

 

to say that being born of flesh means natural birth, which entails "water" isn't a stretch at all.  There is no impossible logical leap.  I don't think it is referring to amniotic fluid either, but neither is it the incredible stretch you trying paint it to be.   It is a valid argument whether one agrees with it or not.

 

The one making the "stretch" is you.  You violate historical propriety by trying to claim that Jesus is speaking of Christian baptism before Christian baptism and the theology that surrounds it even existed. 

 

Baptism in first century Jewish theology had an entirely different purpose than Christian baptism and so even IF Jesus were referring to baptism, it would not have meant to Nicodemus what it means to us.

 

The Bible doesn't say that when you are baptized you are born of spirit and water.  Your claim can't be supported by the Bible.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Shiloh

Show me where in the bible that being born of water means being born from your mother.

Hold yourself to the standard that you hold me to.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh

Show me where in the bible that being born of water means being born from your mother.

Hold yourself to the standard that you hold me to.

I already said that I don't hold that view.  Why do I need to provide evidence for a view I don't support?  

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Neither has made the connection as how being born of water is flesh. How is being born of water mean being born from your mother. Im sorry but your paralleles are an incredible stretch.

to say that being born of flesh means natural birth, which entails "water" isn't a stretch at all. There is no impossible logical leap. I don't think it is referring to amniotic fluid either, but neither is it the incredible stretch you trying paint it to be. It is a valid argument whether one agrees with it or not.

The one making the "stretch" is you. You violate historical propriety by trying to claim that Jesus is speaking of Christian baptism before Christian baptism and the theology that surrounds it even existed.

Baptism in first century Jewish theology had an entirely different purpose than Christian baptism and so even IF Jesus were referring to baptism, it would not have meant to Nicodemus what it means to us.

The Bible doesn't say that when you are baptized you are born of spirit and water. Your claim can't be supported by the Bible.

Your first paragraph you support this idea and make the argument that it's not an impossible logical leap. My argument is far more logical and far more plausible.

So if you are going to say that being born of water means being born from your mother, is not an impossible logical leap than where in the Bible is that connection?