Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He doesn't. He uses the word ANWQEN (anwthen) - which can be translated in two ways: "Again" or "afrom above".AnnieSue said:If he is speaking of one birth...why does he use the term "born agin" implying 2 births.
Hmmmm So what was the point of Jesus' baptism?JohnJones said:Water baptism does not and cannot exist apart from Christ nor antithetical to him.
According to Matt 3:15 it was to fulfill all righteousness. Thus, he stepped into our place through his baptism. Through our baptism we step into his place of righteousness; and of course, baptism is intimately connected with faith.Unnamed Servant said:Hmmmm So what was the point of Jesus' baptism?
jj_3737 said:JohnJones, yes, there are obvious parallels between Titus 3:5 and John 3:5 and that is indeed why I quoted the verse. You stated,
JohnJones said:Note that the phrase "our BODIES washed with pure water" indicates literal water - Paul says that having our BODIES washed with pure water gives us boldness to enter the holy of holies! What else can he mean other than water baptism, and what else can Titus 3:5 be talking about? Nothing else.
This is nothing less than blasphemy. To suggest that to wash our bodies with pure water is to wash with the water down at the local river is to literally deny the living water given to us by Christ.
He does speak of two births in the overall context, but in verse 5 he speaks only of one birth. In verse 5 he explains what the re-birth consists of, two elements, water and Spirit. If he meant to speak of two births in verse 5, that is, if he meant to contrast a birth of water with a birth of Spirit, he would have been forced by the Greek language to say the word "born" twice. If he said "A man must be born of water and born of the Spirit" then you would be right, but in that he says "A man must be born of water and of the Spirit" he makes it one birth consisting of two elements rather than two separate births. So, the re-birth consists of water and of Spirit, and (of course) there was a first birth of flesh prior to this two-element-re-birth.AnnieSue said:If he is speaking of one birth...why does he use the term "born agin" implying 2 births.
Actually, the verse you quoted disputes what you are trying to claim . . the phrase "washing of regeneration" was a phrase used by the early Christians to refer to water baptism . . this verse actually says the opposite of what you are claiming . . it says 'But according to his mercy he saved us, bu the washng of regeneration (Baptism), and renewing of the Holy Ghost . ..jj_3737 said:AnnieSue, you are correct in your belief regarding water baptism, and I agree that if water baptism is required for salvation then your salvation is based upon works, and no longer upon the grace of God. For the Scriptures repeatedly testify that our salvation is,
"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" - Titus 3:5.
Who ever said that what Jesus said to Nicodemus was a parable???If then you ask, why does it not just say the Spirit, and leave water out if they are the same? I then ask you this, and I ask that you sincerely think about the question. Why did Jesus tell His disciples that He spoke in parables?
Since that is no where in scripture . . it cannot be defended . . and you have just condemend the entire first century Church . ..Therefore, I testify again, that all who say we are saved by baptism of water have fallen from grace, and Christ has profited you nothing. By works shall none be justified.
That isn't why he was baptized. Read Matthew 3:15-16 again.Unnamed Servant said:So was Jesus not the son of God until His baptism?
Why can't the washing by the Holy Spirit be done during Baptism? The act of water baptism being the tree that provides the shade. That would be more in line with the rest of the scriptures that refer to baptism. When we seperate the flow of scripture to refute or disprove other scriptures, are we not advocating that the scriptures do not work together? In Acts 2:38 it says to Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sin, instead saying that the word "for" means something different here (indicating that God does not have the ability to maintain the validity of his word even in todays translations) we can conclude that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin and the water is a symbol of the saving power of Christ blood. That is what lines up perfectly with Peter 3:21, that the water symobolizes baptism which now saves us. But in order to disprove water baptism by saying that it is a symbol goes againts what this scripture says.it is the Holy Ghost which does the washing AND the renewing
That is not what 1 Peter 3:21 says.That is what lines up perfectly with Peter 3:21, that the water symobolizes baptism which now saves us.
That is not what 1 Peter 3:21 says
notinvain said:
Sorry.... "this water". I should clarify here that the water didn't save them, the Arch saved them, which God instructed Noah to build. Just like baptism saves us not the water itself, which is what God chose water for- to be the symbol of our salvation, therefore making baptism of Gods instruction.
Compare the analogy here: God provided Noah with the instruction to build something that would save them, just like he provides us with the instruction to use water as a symbol of our salvation, and our salvation lies in the forgiving power of Christ blood which is what the water symbolizes, literally through our Faith.
So, what you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are justified by water baptism? It is water baptism that takes away our sins? If you would, could you please answer with a simple YES, or NO. For, I suspect, if you have to explain any further, then you are not truly confident in your position, and I am trying to understand your view.notinvain said:...we can conclude that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin...
I wonder, what is this greater thing? What is water baptism greater than? I imagine, you will say, indeed it is greater than just a symbol. But if this be your answer, what are you implying? If it is more than just a symbol, then it must have something to do with ones salvation; however, if you say that it doesn't have anything to do with ones salvation, then it must be between a symbol and salvation? Sort of a backup plan if Christ should fail you? A fail-safe if salvation must be wrought be some other means? Of course, correct me if I misspoke regarding your position?filosofer said:So, it is not that baptism is a "symbol". Rather, it is the greater thing.
jj_3737 said:So, what you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are justified by water baptism? It is water baptism that takes away our sins? If you would, could you please answer with a simple YES, or NO. For, I suspect, if you have to explain any further, then you are not truly confident in your position, and I am trying to understand your view.
I wonder, what is this greater thing? What is water baptism greater than? I imagine, you will say, indeed it is greater than just a symbol. But if this be your answer, what are you implying? If it is more than just a symbol, then it must have something to do with ones salvation; however, if you say that it doesn't have anything to do with ones salvation, then it must be between a symbol and salvation? Sort of a backup plan if Christ should fail you? A fail-safe if salvation must be wrought be some other means? Of course, correct me if I misspoke regarding your position?
jj_3737 said:Essentially, from what you are saying, you must conclude that when you are baptized in literal water, you are baptized by the Spirit. So essentially, baptism would have to be required for salvation in your view. If that combination is the one baptism, it is the only conclusion one could reach.
Here are my answers to the questions:
Is baptism in literal water required for salvation? - NO
Is baptism in literal water something a Christian needs to do at all? - NO
If you would, could you please answer those 2 questions with a YES, or NO please. I have heard your arguments, and seen the Scripture; I just want to understand your view.
I think I've been very consistent in my stance and in my Scriptural evidence. Anyway, this is a topic that requires spiritual eyes, and I'm not saying you don't have those, b/c you have good things to say, but I suggest a more spiritual look at Baptism is required. A view that looks at the whole of Scripture, and not any one particular verse. If you look at Acts to prove baptism by water, you are not taking into account the whole of Scripture, and the Spiritual learning process the Apostles went through in Acts. Such as, the great spiritual awakening of Peter...Acts 11:15-16.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?