A Personal Relationship with Jesus is not enough

Ron, I part with DHK on the water issue in John 3:5. I just can't help but think that these two men,having a personal conversation, would have to talk so obscurely to eachother. This was not a sermon to the masses here. It was Jesus sharing one on one with N. That said, I believe the water is just water. I believe the greek word used just means water. Jesus was saying that there were two births, one natural and one spiritual. As DHK said, both are required to get into HEAVEN. The next verse seems to confirm my interpretation by saying flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit to Spirit. We use the phrase "her water broke" to this day. I have seen my 3 children born and believe me water abounded, it abounded all over the table etc... (Ha Ha). It looked like water and it makes sense in that day they would not have used some goofy scientific term. Ron, if you and I sat down and talked we would not talk in bizarre symbolism, yet saying the water is the Word or Baptism requires Jesus to do this, not to the disciples but to one man, whom had great interest in what Jesus had to say. Other "symbolic" type things Jesus says in John 3, like "the wind blows" are straight forward things and easy to understand.

Sorry to intrude here but I hate seeing meaning thrust on to scripture instead of just taking what it says as, well, as what it says.

In Easter's Love,
Brian

 

That is the more probable answer. I notice the baptismal regenerationists saying "born AGAIN of water and spirit", but the text does not say this. Our first birth is "of water", and "of the flesh", while we must then be born AGAIN, this time, of the spirit. The "word" and "baptism" interpretations have have strong evidence, but looking at the parallelism in Chris'ts statement between first and second birth, this points strongly in favor of water simply being another term for the first birth.

In any case, receiving the word of truth, conversion, and water baptism all were originally aspects of one act, so yes, the fathers would continue to speak of them as one act, and describe it in terms of "baptism", the only visible sign of this act, and say that it "saves". Now the water baptism has been separated into a later event; but still, we can't take it by itself and focus on it as being what actually saves, or is necessary for salvation. A person who willfully neglects it may be disobedient, but this is no different than any other act of disobedience that a Christian may be guilty of, but still not be unsaved because of it. (In the NT, where baptism was the primary sign, then one could say refusing was an act of "denying Christ before men", in which case the person would be "denied by Christ" (not saved--Matt.10:32-3). But since baptism is no longer the primary act of initial public confession, we cannot say this).
You all insist on the spiritual meaning behind the physical act, then you should understand that water baptism is not a "second" baptism if it occurs later, or if we say it is not what saves. It is apart of the "one baptism", that unfortunately, has lost its significance over the ages because nobody does it immediately anymore, and it was essentially replaced by altar calls and/or prayers of repentance as the immediate sign of conversion.

 

Actually, one could make a much better case that it is the other way around--that the merely symbolic water baptism view is the doctrine of man.

It's funny--many different groups claim that they are "letting the Bible interpret itself" yet arrive at contradictory conclusions on many different doctrines. (And it does no good that to say these groups are "united on the essentials" when they can't even agree what those essentials are.)

 

The word of God did not exist until the reformation?

That would be a neat trick.

There were no Spirit born, and taught by God christians prior to the reformation?

Mike

 

The word of God did not exist until the reformation?

That would be a neat trick.

There were no Spirit born, and taught by God christians prior to the reformation?

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture existed prior to the Reformation.

The relatively new doctrines did not.

One of the newer doctrines is the secret pretribulation rapture.

Unheard of until about 80 years ago.

 

Trying2understand

Here is something concerning this topic. It is an excerpt from a longer artcle. I recieved it in an email from someone, and I didnt get a link with it. Hopefully its OK to post it.(I usually always post a link.)

"In recent years, many opponents of the pre-tribulation rapture view have made dogmatic assertions that this view was never taught before 1820 A.D. There have been attempts to attribute the origin of this view to John N. Darby.

Grant Jeffrey has found an ancient citation from a sermon ascribed to Ephraem of Nisibis (306-373 a.d.), which clearly teaches that believers will be raptured and taken to Heaven before The Tribulation. Ephraem of Nisibis was the most important and prolific of the Syrian church fathers and a witness to early Christianity on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the late fourth century.

He was well-known for his poetry, exegetical and theological writings, and many of the hymns of the early Byzantine church. So popular were his works that in the fifth and sixth centuries he was adopted by several Christian communities as a spiritual leader and role model.

This sermon is deemed to be one of the most interesting apocalyptic texts of the early Middle Ages. The translation of the sermon includes the following segment:3

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

This text was originally a sermon called On the Last Times, the Anti-christ, and the End of the World. There are four existing Latin manuscripts (the Parisinus, the Augiensis, the Barberini, and the St. Gallen) ascribed to St. Ephraem or to St. Isidore . Some scholars believe this text was written by some unknown writer in the sixth century and was derived from the original Ephraem.4

The sermon describes the events of the last days, beginning with the rapture, the Great Tribulation of 3 1/2 years duration under the Antichrist's rule, followed by the Second Coming of Christ. In Ephraem's book The Book of the Cave of Treasures, written about 370 A.D., he expressed his belief that the 69th week of Daniel ended with the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah.5
This, of course, doesn't prove that the pre-tribulation view is correct; only that it was held (by some) in the early centuries and was not unique to the revival of the 1830's. It simply documents that this view was held by a remnant of the faithful from the beginning until today"

God bless,

Mike

 

Christianity Today, April 6, 2004
DHK

 

To extrapolate this single example into documentation that a veiw was held by a remnant from the beginning until today is a bit of a stretch.

If it is a historical Christian belief, where are the other sermons, writings, etc. throughout history to give evidence of it?

BTW, did you know that the same author wrote Marian hymns?

 

Those are nice verses you quoted. Most of them have to do with baptim. Your interpretation is suspect. That's not the question here. Nothing of which you have written has to do with John 3:3--"You must be born again." Nothing here addresses the issue of being born of water and of the Spirit.
DHK

 

The whole "Ephraem-teaching-the-PreTrib-Rapture" myth was debunked by Gundry in First the Antichrist.

 

You are being hypocrital, and I think you know it. Unless you agree with Briguy on the issue of John 3:5, you believe that water is symbolic. Thus you are reading into the Scripture whatever you want (or whatever the cults and the RCC wants). Most cults believe it refers to baptism too, so at least you have something in common. For you, baptism must be twisted into symbolism in order to force the reading to fit your preconceived belief.

You do err not knowing the Scripture, neither the power of God. Only Christ (God) has the power to forgive (remit)sins, not any priest.

 

DKH,

How else are you born or water and of the Spirit, if not by Baptism? A person doesn't receive the Holy Spirit until they are baptized.

All the verses that I quoted have everything to do with being born again. A person is not "born again" by making a profession of faith. IT is through baptism that a persons dies to his/her old life and receives a new life in Christ.

 

This is totally untrue. Your understanding of the list you gave is suspect. It must have come from some anti-catholic source who didn't research the material enough.

Signed L4H the ex-IFB and PTL to be reconciling to the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH this Easter!!!!

 

No, equating the Holy Spirit to baptism is a heresy. Go back and read my post explaining how to be born again, and see if you can understand it. All that baptism will do is get you wet. There is nothing magical in the waters of baptism. It is H2O, and that is all. You are being quite superstitious if you think that water can wash away sins. You might as well become a Hindu and go wash in the Ganges River. They too believe the same thing--water washes away sin. This is a heresy--baptismal regeneration.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

What does the Word of God say: Go Ahead! Wash yourself! Be Baptized! Do it as many times as you like! Use as much water as you like. Use the strongest possible soap that you can find (lye or nitre). Use much soap or lots of soap. But know this in the end: thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord
Water (baptism) cannot wash away sin.
YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN!

DHK

 

trying2understand,

No I didnt, but it doesnt bother me in the least if he did. The point is not to say this person was a full blown "evangelical" in his theology, or even saved for that matter. The only point is that the pre-trib view was held very early.

God bless,

Mike

 

DoubtingThomas,

I cant tell you how many times someone has come on to a thread like this to say "Popey the Sailer Man "de-bunked" this material and proved it was a forgery!"

Only to have someone else come on and say "Sorry, but Popeye the Sailer Man's debunking of this material was debunked by Brutus the Mean Guy in this article here...!"

On and on it goes.

Blessings,

Mike

 

Water baptism is the visable sign that, through the power of Christ, actually convey the grace that it symbolizes. It is the action of Christ.

 

DHK, thank you for your personal opinions. But I must say that I do not see in Scripture Jesus granting you the keyes to the kingdom nor the powers to remitt or retain.

I do however see Jesus granting authority to the Church, so I think that I'll just stick with that.

Ron

 

L4H, You make a lot of statements about Baptism without verse support. Please quote a verse to support each claim you make. Lets go one verse at a time. I will refute the verse you use and then you can respond to what I write. Then we can move to the next verse if you so choose. Sound like a plan?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Briguy,

I have given plenty of verses throughout this entire thread but here you go:

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Also, please reread my postings on page 9 and 10.