Quote:
Originally Posted by Adino
This is a silly statement. That baptism was an important part of the early church does not prove it is the topic of Christ in John 3. It most certainly does not prove it was considered by the Apostles as part of the new birth. There are important non-salvific reasons for the practice. I would like you to exegete John 3 for us as well. Do not give us your interpretation of the purpose of baptism. I personally think your interpretation of its purpose falls under the teachings of the "false prophets" you mentioned.
Please, exegete, John 3 as if it was the only text you had available. What do the words "born of water" mean in textual context? Show me why you feel the author means baptism in this passage. Why do you reject the possibility that the author simply uses the word "water" metaphorically as he does soon afterwards in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39)? Why not allow the author to define his own terms? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
The thing that gets me is that the importance, even the essentiallity of water baptism still has a strong case from other passages of scripture. There's really no need to force a "water baptism" into John 3:5.
And there's certainly no need to call people "pigs and swine" because they disagree with the awkward PAJC exposition of John 3:5. But if it's really that important, I'm sure "Light" is concerned enough and capable enough to show me where I'm wrong. All I ask is that we focus on John 3:5 and its context when discussing John 3:5. Don't make grand and presumptuous statements about everything else while ignoring what's right in front of us.
Light? |
Adino and Pelathais have laid down the gauntlet.... perhaps Mizpeh, Light, Steve Epley or another 3 stepper can meet the challenge?
Threaded Mode
