Water baptism, can you agree with this statement? - Page 20

Darcie · #**191** 10-03-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

It absolutely was.

The "how many coats" of blood does it take was way out of line, and in my estimation - quite profane.

You ever heard 2 wrongs don't make a right? This is not only directed towards you... but here on AFF we all get upset by what's posted from time to time... but the name calling really gets to me.

mizpeh · #**192** 10-03-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bishoph

OK, Brethren I have watched this very weak attempt by some to explain away the necessity of water baptism, or at the very least to remove it from the plan of salvation long enough. I will start here to add my twenty dollars worth.

Lets start with a simple question. You have raised the John 3:5 issue (and=Kai which under certain conditions could be even, however, according to Granville Sharp's rule (which Bro. Sam referred to on another post) your argument is flawed.

Rule V.
And as also when there is no article (the) before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative kai before the next noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different person or thing from the first: emphasis and () added

Here it is clearly established that since there is no "the" (article) preceding "water" Kai in this instance cannot mean "even," and in fact John is speaking of a different "person or thing" when he refers to Spirit.

Secondly a simple question if baptism is only symbolic, and is not part of the "salvation" plan, please explain why Peter commands one to be Baptized for the remission/Forgivness of sins?

Thank you, Bishop. Here's the text from the Greek Stephanas text on Esword:

Joh 3:5 απεκριθη answered 611 V-ADI-3S ο the 3588 T-NSM ιησους Jesus 2424 N-NSM αμην Verily 281 HEB αμην verily 281 HEB λεγω I say 3004 V-PAI-1S σοι unto thee 4671 P-2DS εαν 1437 COND μη 3361 PRT-N τις a man 5100 X-NSM γεννηθη be born 1080 V-APS-3S εξ of 1537 PREP υδατος water 5204 N-GSN και and 2532 CONJ πνευματος the Spirit 4151 N-GSN ου 3756 PRT-N δυναται he cannot 1410 V-PNI-3S εισελθειν enter 1525 V-2AAN εις into 1519 PREP την 3588 T-ASF βασιλειαν kingdom 932 N-ASF του 3588 T-GSM θεου of God. 2316 N-GSM

It's clear there is no article before either water and Spirit. Most translations added the definite article 'the' before the word, Spirit.

Green's literal translation: Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.

Nahum · #**193** 10-03-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darcie

You ever heard 2 wrongs don't make a right? This is not only directed towards you... but here on AFF we all get upset by what's posted from time to time... but the name calling really gets to me.

Your post would be funny if it weren't so sad.

We have a group of posters who have castigated the predominant belief of most on this board - and you are upset because I asked if they were stupid?

I never called them stupid. I'm just concerned about the mental capacity of someone who would say some of the things that have been said on this thread.

Darcie · #**194** 10-03-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Your post would be funny if it weren't so sad.

We have a group of posters who have castigated the predominant belief of most on this board - and you are upset because I asked if they were stupid?

I never called them stupid. I'm just concerned about the mental capacity of someone who would say some of the things that have been said on this thread.

Whatever PP! I guess I'm the one embarressed for you right now.

Steve Epley · #**195** 10-03-2007, 10:16 AM

Again all through Acts the twins are readily seen belief & baptism, so it seems the early church understood the connection.
I was discussing water baptism with some folks who did not believe in water baptism that all baptism was Spirit. Their premise seemed to be somewhat the same.
Water is a symbol of the Spirit in scripture no one will deny that. However that does not exclude the FACT baptism in water is evident in EVERY NT conversion instance.
I also have said the omission of the "the" in front of water must mean something. "The" is found in front of Spirit. I agree with the post someone posted.
It would seem some of you see no difference in the importance of water baptism than communion-giving-church going?
Then to charge us as being sacramentalist the charge is absurd and meant to be demeaning.

tbpew · #**196** 10-03-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Thank you, Bishop. Here's the text from the Greek Stephanas text on Esword:

Joh 3:5 απεκριθη answered 611 V-ADI-3S ο the 3588 T-NSM ιησους Jesus 2424 N-NSM αμην Verily 281 HEB αμην verily 281 HEB λεγω I say 3004 V-PAI-1S σοι unto thee 4671 P-2DS εαν 1437 COND μη 3361 PRT-N τις a man 5100 X-NSM γεννηθη be born 1080 V-APS-3S εξ of 1537 PREP υδατος water 5204 N-GSN και and 2532 CONJ πνευματος the Spirit 4151 N-GSN ου 3756 PRT-N δυναται he cannot 1410 V-PNI-3S εισελθειν enter 1525 V-2AAN εις into 1519 PREP την 3588 T-ASF βασιλειαν kingdom 932 N-ASF του 3588 T-GSM θεου of God. 2316 N-GSM

It's clear there is no article before either water and Spirit. Most translations added the definite article 'the' before the word, Spirit.

Green's literal translation: Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.

thank you mizpeh for providing the kind of engagement some posters take liberty to demand. You have presented a witness pertaining to John3:5 that IMO,is fully consistent with the wisdom from above that Jesus provided in John 12:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit

Death and burial is an inescapable precursor to newness of life. To deny or disregard such would be to invite double-mindedness and the unavoidable destination of a bottle that will burst.

The loss in such an end is so great, destroying the vessel and depriving others of the benefit of the contents.

BrotherEastman · #**197** 10-03-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

If you think anyone here is arguing against obedience ... YOU STILL DON'T GET IT as doesn't TBP... and are very disingenuous in stating that I and others on this board are advocating DISOBEDIENCE.

PCIers from Goss on down ... believe that baptism is to be obeyed ... as an initial step ...

but unfortunately until this day friend you haven't captured the dynamics of this debate ...

we are looking at what happens at baptism ... what it signifies

and the when and how of the New Birth....

One day it will click.

If your not arguing against disobedience, whats this debate really about? Must not be baptism at all. Peter must've had it all wrong when he commanded the crowd (who asked him, mind you) What shall we do? Peters reply was to repent, BE BAPTIZED, and then you shall recieve the HG. Why is this a debate? What difference does it make concerning the so called dynamics of this debate? Of course, as always, I really don't expect you to give an answer because you never do. BTW, false doctrine will not "click" with me.