Does water baptism precede regeneration?

[Marathoner]

28 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

 

Both Leaders claimed the same thing about the bible that is "inerrant" and they started a religious war that killed thousands of believers on both sides.

Thank you for your insight, there translations of questionable context away from the original and claim their value by saying it is the "inerrant " word of God (alluring to their translation) that was one of my points. 

The other problem is the translations. 

And at the preface they say "the inerrant " word of God. And are used to deceived many. 

The first rule of holes: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. The deeper one goes, the more difficult it is get out of it. I see what you're getting at, my friend, and it's definitely not a matter for this topic.

Why not create your own topic to air your views? There's no profit to be had in this, seeing as how some of us have already touched upon our meager understanding in interpreting the words of God as they are given to us in the scriptures. 

So... what does this have to do with baptism?

 

[leah777]

Colossians 2:12

New King James Version

"12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

This, and the surrounding scripture in this passage, tells me that water baptism is important. We are lowered into the water - symbolising death of our old selves and the death of Christ, and then raised up again, symbolising rebirth. 

1 Peter 3:21

American Standard Version

"21 which also [a]after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;"

The putting away of filth would not be mentioned if water were not involved. This scripture shows that water was involved.

Edited March 13, 2021 by leah777
clarification

[Justin Adams]

10 hours ago, David1701 said:

Your post throws up many such questions.

Yes. I will modify it just a little and say that the TRUTH PROPOSITIONS as a COHERENT abstract are without error. Therefore, "we" claim inerrancy so we can legitimately kill you if you do not agree. (bottom line of some old biblical prefaces)

Christendom's enforcers used torture and death where coherence and plain reason did not appear to work. 

[David1701]

9 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Yes. I will modify it just a little and say that the TRUTH PROPOSITIONS as a COHERENT abstract are without error.

Okay; but, do you claim that there are incoherent truth propositions in the Bible?

[Justin Adams]

34 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Okay; but, do you claim that there are incoherent truth propositions in the Bible?

Definition of coherent (Merriam)

1a: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : CONSISTENT coherent style, a coherent argument

1b: having clarity or intelligibility : UNDERSTANDABLE a coherent persona, coherent passage

The antithesis is not really a valid question, since it might be said that all incoherent 'truths' are by definition not understandable; the phrase is thus an oxymoron that implodes.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Justin Adams]

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

 

lol  (josh pulls up chair to watch)   

 

Can we agree there are truths in scripture we do not fully comprehend?

Can we agree God truthfully reports humans holding false beliefs and making false statements? 

Can we agree some folks draw conclusions from either/both they should not draw and teach erroneously?

(would you like me to move my chair further away?) 

That is perfectly coherent. To me that seems correct, though to some it would mean a very messy food fight.

(Hazmat gear for Josh now)

Edited March 14, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Charlie744]

Ok, it is now been at least 24 hours since my absolutely brilliant response to @Your closest friendnt.

The most important thing I do today is to sincerely and deeply apologize to YCF AND ALL OTHERS WHO HAD TO READ MY POST. It was absolutely unacceptable and NO ONE deserves to be treated that way.... and please note there are NO "but this... or but he.... or but what about"..... This apology is without any conditions or "buts" tied to the end of it.

Just so you folks know:

1) Last evening was one of the worst nights I have experienced during my Christian life. 

          a) And it had nothing to do with the Good Lord's visit last evening where He proceeded to "waterboard" me for two hours...... 

2) Had this occurred or taken place at ANY TIME during my pre-Christian life, I would be "waterboarding" myself for taking it so easy on him.......

3) But apparently, I awoke this morning and I think I may be still saved. This now creates a brand new problem for me.... does this mean I have to change my opinion on OSAS?  Does this mean I can repeat those kinds of responses to YCF since I am "saved"?  I mean what's a little waterboarding.......

            a) well, I have decided not to test God on the OSAS position.... I'm good with my original believe we can lose our salvation...... so, if you are NOT finding yourself being subjected to a "waterboarding" experience after you do the kind of things I did, I am going to suggest you drink a lot of coffee and don't go to sleep - head directly to church and ask for forgiveness.... BEFORE Jesus wakes up and reads His "to do" list for the day .... just saying.

4) In an unrelated note, I want to ask YCF the following:

           a)  prior to even yesterday, I noticed your username is "your closest friendnt".....

                 1) when I was growing up we used to say something to someone in a teasing way and finish it with a "just kidding",

                 2) perhaps 10 to 15 years ago I noticed that generation would now say to someone, "hey, I think he is a great boss..... NOT". And usually they would apply this manner of getting their point across in a very humorous way.

                 3) which brings me to your username of course - "your closes friendnt".

Are the two letters -nt at the end of "friend" suppose to mean "not" like you are making a joke?  Or simply a typo or perhaps they represent your initials, etc..... just my weird mind at work here.

                              a) Now, if it is more than that I am wondering if this may just be the cause of all of our misunderstandings during the past day or so: 

I noticed you mentioned in one of your responses to @leah777 or @Marathoneror @Justin Adams or others where you mentioned you have never used the term "inerrant" before and were not familiar with its meaning..... So, putting 2 and 2 together, I will just bet if @leah777 had originally wrote "inerrantnt", you would certainly have understood what she was saying...... what do you think?

Please note that EXCEPT FOR THE VERY SINCERE APOLOGY EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEANT TO BE TAKEN IN A JOKING MANNER!!!!!!!!  

I think it is safe to say that everyone enjoys your responsesnt,

I think you bring so much to these very difficult interpretationsnt,

I think you are just swellnt,

(I am so sorry YCF, I could not resist... and please know this is most likely the absolute worst American humor you will ever have to encounter....)

God bless, and best wishes always, Charlie

 

 

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Definition of coherent (Merriam)

1a: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : CONSISTENT coherent style, a coherent argument

1b: having clarity or intelligibility : UNDERSTANDABLE a coherent persona, coherent passage

The antithesis is not really a valid question, since it might be said that all incoherent 'truths' are by definition not understandable; the phrase is thus an oxymoron that implodes.

I agree with your conclusion; and it was that conclusion, to which I had already come, that prompted my question.  The point is this: you said that the Bible's TRUTH PROPOSITIONS as a COHERENT abstract are without error; but, why would you include, with emphasis, "...as a COHERENT abstract...", in the context of our discussion?

Here is the post that started this discussion.

"I would say that the TRUTH STATEMENTS are not in error. To say any one particular text does not make mistakes is silly. People have a warped sense of 'inspiration'. The  bottom line is God's Truths never fail."

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=262330&content_commentid=3357088

When I read, "To say any one particular text does not make mistakes is silly.", I assumed, reasonably, that you meant that some particular Bible texts do make mistakes.  Now, it's true that people are sometimes quoted saying things that are in error, but it's clear from the context that these statements are not intended to be believed and, therefore, the texts themselves are not mistakes (they are accurate quotes).

Your clarifying post then added the idea of coherent truth propositions being without error.  Since you had already implied that you think that some biblical texts make mistakes, then it seemed that you probably thought that not all truth propositions in the Bible are coherent (which I agree is an oxymoron).

To try to solve this: if I say that some biblical texts contain mistakes by those quoted, but that the texts themselves are not mistaken, would you agree?

Edited March 14, 2021 by David1701

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

lol  (josh pulls up chair to watch)   

 

Can we agree there are truths in scripture we do not fully comprehend?

Can we agree God truthfully reports humans holding false beliefs and making false statements? 

Can we agree some folks draw conclusions from either/both they should not draw and teach erroneously?

(would you like me to move my chair further away?) 

All agreed; but, these things do not satisfy my curiosity about Justin's posts.

[Justin Adams]

23 minutes ago, David1701 said:

would you agree

Yes.