What did Jesus mean?

[RightFromWrong]

UZTHD answer this below.......You guys can throw around your big words and try to sound impressive all you want.
Too bad common sense and a proper use of hermeneutics is lacking when it comes to rightly dividing the word.

I still find it interesting NNE has explained away my point that if

BORN OF WATER MEANT BAPTISM THEN WHY DID JESUS TELL THE THIEF ON THE CROSS HE WOULD BE WITH HIM THAT DAY IN PARIDISE ?

YET JESUS TOLD NICODEMUS THAT IN ORDER TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ONE MUST " BAPTIZED " FIRST THEN BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT SECOND.

SO THAT WOULD MAKE JESUS A LIAR, AND YOU ARE SAYING BAPTISM COMES BEFORE SALVATION. Guess the Catholics and Lutherans were right on this one

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

BORN OF WATER MEANT BAPTISM THEN WHY DID JESUS TELL THE THIEF ON THE CROSS HE WOULD BE WITH HIM THAT DAY IN PARIDISE ?

Born of water doesn't mean Baptism and I DID answer your question on the previous page...

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:26

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Jhn 7:38

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
Jer 2:13

It is obvious that the living water is the Word.

===


OBVIOUS,OBVIOUS,OBVIOUS


But NOT to those several scholars I list above.

Neither is it obvious to RIGHT'S pastors who think water=physical birth --and they , as RIGHT says, know more than any on this board...including me and you!

Where do you see Word in Jer 2:13 or Jo 7:38?

As for Eph 5:26 FF Bruce and Hendricksen and the grammarian AT Robertson (heard of him???) all think that text refers to WB. As Wood says in EBC, rhema (word) refers to the spoken word of the baptizand.

So, you see while it is all obvious to you, it is not to others.

Bill

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
[QB] I have been under the teaching of some very good pastors, who are more learned than anyone on this board I am sure. Everyone of them agree's with me and I am sure many others on here. That WATER mean PHYSICAL BIRTH.

===


See there ya all? Water CANNOT =Word or Spirit or WB,and we all are wrong because RIGHT FROM WRONG'S'S pastors are MORE LEARNED THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD or antwhere else for that matter and they say water=PHYSICAL BIRTH. It's all settled. So there!

 

[Bluefalcon]

I can see Bill's point. What did Baptism signify when "all" of Judea went out to be baptized by John? Repentance. But not all baptized by John had the Holy Spirit, as evident by the couple in Acts still preaching the baptism of John but not having the Spirit yet. Once they had the Spirit (by the laying on of hands in their case), they were saved and could enter the Kingdom of God! Jesus, BTW, was baptized and the Spirit came upon him as a dove. This may indeed be John's meaning if one reads John 1 through John 3 in succession. Hint: water and Spirit are very closely connected in Jn. 1:29-34. Hint: water and baptism are very closely connected in Jn. 1:29-34. Hint: baptism with water is not enough; one must also be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:33).

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Where do you see Word in Jer 2:13 or Jo 7:38?

Jesus is the living Word.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
[QB] I can see Bill's point.
===

As always I value your intelligent opinions.

What I've tried to express is my view which may be right or wrong that in the NT WB is closely connected to Faith, the HS, and the Word. IMO there is no need to suppose that even if the water=WB that that means WB saves.

It is faith and the HS and the hearing and responding to the Word that saves. I heartily agree with that!

If anyone will examine all of my posts in this thread where I seriously express a view on the water , one, I hope, will see that it is dogmatism that most worries me and not the several opinions themselves. I do not have to be right! Apparently some do!

Usually I say "IMO" or I refer to scholars whose opinions differ from the posters.

Good Biblical/theological education (IMO) requires the careful analyses of the views on an issue. That education is not promoted by closed mindedness. Prejudice is the headsman of truth!

Bill

[ August 29, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Where do you see Word in Jer 2:13 or Jo 7:38?

Jesus is the living Word. </font>[/QUOTE]===

That is true.

So IYO is every use of the word logos or rhema where God is concerned to be identified as being the Person of Jesus?

The "word" cannot mean what is prophesied, preached or taught or confessed by one being baptized?

 

[UZThD]

 

[RightFromWrong]

I Am Blessed 16..... I was talking to UZThD and Craig who believe that Born of Water means baptism. If you do not believe it is baptism, you do not need to answer my question. I think DHK gave a good explaination on another possiblity.

By the way UZThD I am not being Dogmatic when it comes to this subject. But since your view is so rediculous and cannot be backed up within the context by scripture, it has to be thrown out ! Thats just basic hermeneutics.

As you can see a few others have given a more plausible view which makes a heck of alot more sense than your does

Like a true liberal since you cannot ATTACK the message you ATTACK the messenger. Your approach is very juvenile.

By the way you still haven't explained, the thief on the cross, he wasn't baptized ?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UZThD:

OBVIOUS,OBVIOUS,OBVIOUS

The meaning of the new birth is obvious. In that you are correct.

But NOT to those several scholars I list above.

One man and God make a majority. Several scholars copying each other's error doesn't change the error. Baptismal regeneration is one of the oldest heresies of Christendom. It is not water, but the blood of Jesus Christ that washes away our sin.

Neither is it obvious to RIGHT'S pastors who think water=physical birth --and they , as RIGHT says, know more than any on this board...including me and you!

Even his explanation, which is plausible, does not end up in outright heresy contradicting the clear teaching of Scripture that a man is justified by faith and faith alone. "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God" (Rom.5:1). It says "justified by faith," not justified by baptism.

Where do you see Word in Jer 2:13 or Jo 7:38?

Jer.2 is interesting. You should read a bit further on where Jeremiah makes a complete mockery to those that believe in the concept of 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.
--Jeremiah says take as much water as you wish (lots of it), plenty of soap as well, and the strongest possible cleanser like lye (nitre), and then scrub yourself. Use lots of water and lots of soap. Wash thoroughly. But as much as you wash, you will never, never wash away your sin. Only the Blood of Christ can do that. Jeremiah, in effect, makes a mockery of baptism (in reference to salvation).

As for Eph 5:26 FF Bruce and Hendricksen and the grammarian AT Robertson (heard of him???) all think that text refers to WB. As Wood says in EBC, rhema (word) refers to the spoken word of the baptizand.

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Old habits die hard. Ask your old scholars. But the Bible lives forever. It never changes. Its truths never changes. That is why a Baptist believes in sola scriptura. We thank God that we don't have to rely upon the teachings of the church fathers or "the scholars," but solely on the teaching of the Word of God.
The church is sancitified (or set apart), and cleansed by the purifying effect of the Word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Psalms 119:9-11 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

It is the Word of God that cleanses, not baptism. To think that baptism can cleanse one from sin is a pagan superstition.
DHK

 

[RightFromWrong]

DHK.... I still want UZThD to answer my question.

I will have to study the interpetation on Born Of Water meaning Washing Of The Word.

 

[Bluefalcon]

In the time in which John 3 occurred, John's baptism was creating quite a stir, and even some Pharisees (perhaps Nicodemus?) were baptized. In that day, baptism (by John signifying repentance) came before the baptism of the Spirit (by Jesus). This is clearly spelled out in John 1:29-34. That this order was changed later does not mean that John is not accurately recording the situation as it was at the present. Of course, now we're baptized by the Spirit before receiving water baptism, but back in John the Baptist's day it was not so. Does this help? NNE IS SAYING THAT BAPTISM SAVES, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, SO QUIT SAYING SO!!!!!! (Yes, the all caps is meant to be yelling!)

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by DHK:
One man and God make a majority. Several scholars copying each other's error doesn't change the error.

===

But that one man may err in thinking that he is speaking for God. He probably does err if he implies that everyone who disagrees with him is a heretic.

You assume somethings are error in your argumentation below. Assumption is not proof.

===

Baptismal regeneration is one of the oldest heresies of Christendom. It is not water, but the blood of Jesus Christ that washes away our sin.

===

Who here is teaching baptismal regeneration? Why do you keep referring to that unless someone in this thread is teaching that?

Why don't you stop your knee jerking and point me to just one place where I say either that WB saves or that WB is necessary for salvation . Where did I say the thief was not saved because he was not baptized?

Please do that in your next post. Thanks.

===

even his explanation, which is plausible,

===

To you it is only plausible but he and his pastors ,who know more than you, say that water MUST=physical birth. Therefore they say you are wrong!And they, I'm sure, like you think that they plus God are a majority! That really is a wonderful hermeneutic and is used as well by Roman Catholics.

===


does not end up in outright heresy contradicting the clear teaching of Scripture
===

Really? So did AT Robertson become a heretic? Are you saying Beasley-Murray who teaches at an SBC seminary is a heretic? That hermeneutic of calling any who disagree with you a heretic is also popular among the RC!

===

that a man is justified by faith and faith alone. "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God" (Rom.5:1). It says "justified by faith," not justified by baptism.

===

Sigh! Once again please point me to the place where I said we are justified by baptism. Please, please, do that in your next post.

===

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Where do you see Word in Jer 2:13 or Jo 7:38?

Jer.2 is interesting. You should read a bit further on where Jeremiah makes a complete mockery to those that believe in the concept of baptismal regeneration.

===


I am not teaching baptismal regeneration.

Look at John 7:38. Where is the word "word" there? 7:39 says its the HS...not the Word.


===

Only the Blood of Christ can do that. Jeremiah, in effect, makes a mockery of baptism (in reference to salvation).

===

I am not saying that baptism saves! If you are saying that I am , then PLEASE, quote me where I said that!

===


Old habits die hard. Ask your old scholars. But the Bible lives forever. It never changes. Its truths never changes. That is why a Baptist believes in sola scriptura. We thank God that we don't have to rely upon the teachings of the church fathers or "the scholars," but solely on the teaching of the Word of God.

===

So does popery die hard!

The Reformers who used the phrase "sola Scriptura" did mean by that that they ignored the original languages, the writings of the fathers, or the opinions of the learned. They did not just assume that they were right!

Neither am I relying on them. I am saying that if a scholar says the the "word" in Eph 5:26 is the confession the baptizand makes and you say no, that neither means that God or Scripture MUST be on your side. It is ONLY your ASSUMPTION that they are.

We do not learn by assuming a superior relationship to God or to the Scriptures than those who disagree with us.

If you assume that your relationship to the NT Scripture is more significant than was AT Robertsons , a Southern Baptist ,who disagrees with both you and RIGHT, and who wrote the 1400 page Greek Grammar in my library, then give your evidence for that assumption instead of knee jerking over baptismal regeneration!

===

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Psalms 119:9-11 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

It is the Word of God that cleanses, not baptism. To think that baptism can cleanse one from sin is a pagan superstition.
DHK [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]===


sigh. Where did I say that the water in water baptism cleanses? I implied , eg, in regard to Eph 5:26 and Acts 22:16 that it is the FAITH of the baptizand which is salvific.

Please stop erecting strawmen and charging at them with some assumed zeal to destroy heresy. I have expressed here NO heresy.

Bill

[ August 30, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
NNE IS SAYING THAT BAPTISM SAVES, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, SO QUIT SAYING SO!!!!!! (Yes, the all caps is meant to be yelling!)

===


Thankyou for actually reading what I write.

 

[RightFromWrong]

UZThD

You still haven't expalined away the thief on the cross ? Why because you can't ! so your doctrine is false you need to throw it out and move on to another explaination

And yes you guys are saying that since according to Jesus he said " One must be born of water ( Baptism ) and of the spirit ( Gods spirit ) So that can ONLY mean since that is the ORDER that Jesus said it needed to be. That you guys believe, one needs to FIRST be Baptized ( By water ) then he needs to be batized by the spirit ( when God comes in )
According to scripture that is EXACTLY what you guys are saying !

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UZThD:

1) Some disagree with you that Nicodemus would not think of WB:

Jesus pointed Nicodemus to the baptism of John (AT Robertson Word pic) Jesus may have been referring to John's preaching. (Tenny, EBC) Christ speaks of WB to Nicodemus (FF Bruce, John) Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about WB. (Beasley-Murray Bap in the NT).

2) But IMO the faith in Christ expressed in water baptism is connected to both Word and Spirit.

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the LORD" (Acts 22:16)

oopsie. Did the inspired Luke write that that? grab your knees to prevent..knee jerk. Too late, here it comes : knee jerk, knee jerk , knee jerk.

Bill

Where did you say baptismal regeneration? Right here in this post--you inasmuch teach baptismal the heresy of baptismal regeneration whether you deny it or not.
Your argument is much like the Church of Churist. Baptism is essential to salvation, just like faith. So you go on to explain that it is the faith in baptism, which is a bunch of hogwash. All that baptism does is get you wet. Baptism is neithr salvic, nor does it impart any grace. Once you say you have faith in baptism you say that baptism saves. Otherwise what are you placing your faith in baptism for? Faith has an object; always!! The object of my faith is Jesus Christ. I have faith in Him and what he has said in his Word is true, so that when I put my faith and trust in his promises he will do as he promised and save me. Thus I am born again. My faith is in his Word (the gospel represented here by the water). I am born again by the operation of the Holy Spirit. A.T. Robertson is not infallible. I believe what the Word of God teaches over what he teaches.

Have you never done a study on Acts 22:16? Do you know the meaning of the verse:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

When was Paul saved?
Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus when he saw Jesus and responded to him as Lord, and told him "Lord what will thou have me to do?" Was he saved then, as indicates in other times that he recounts his testimony?

A literal rendering of the verse would be:
"Having arisen be baptized, and have your sins washed off (by) calling on the name of the Lord."
This last clause is supported by general biblical teaching as in Rom.10:13. (W.MacDonald)

We know that he had already called on the name of the Lord. the phrase be baptized naturally goes with the clause "having arisen." That was the command--To arise and to be baptized. He had already called upon the name of the Lord and his sins had been washed away. Baptism was but symbolic of that operation. The only thing it actually did to Paul was got him wet.

Acts 2:38 "for the remission of sins" uses the preposition "eis" which in other places has been translated the equivalent "on account of" or "because of". Just like John baptized "unto" repentance. He did not baptized in order that they would receive repentance, but because they had already repented. Likewise Peter baptized on the basis or because their sins had been remitted, not in order that they might receive remission of sins.

You must be born of water and of the spirit.
The very fact that you tie baptism into this verse at all indicates that you believe in baptismal regeneration.
DHK

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by DHK:

Originally posted by UZThD:
[qb]
1) Some disagree with you that Nicodemus would not think of WB:

Jesus pointed Nicodemus to the baptism of John (AT Robertson Word pic) Jesus may have been referring to John's preaching. (Tenny, EBC) Christ speaks of WB to Nicodemus (FF Bruce, John) Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about WB. (Beasley-Murray Bap in the NT).

2) But IMO the faith in Christ expressed in water baptism is connected to both Word and Spirit.

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the LORD" (Acts 22:16)

oopsie. Did the inspired Luke write that that? grab your knees to prevent..knee jerk. Too late, here it comes : knee jerk, knee jerk , knee jerk.

Bill

Where did you say baptismal regeneration? Right here in this post--you inasmuch teach baptismal the heresy of baptismal regeneration whether you deny it or not.

===

No I do not.



===

Have you never done a study on Acts 22:16? Do you know the meaning of the verse:

===

yes. It was done as part of a ThM thesis at a Baptist Seminary.

===

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

===


yes. I quoted that.


===

A literal rendering of the verse would be:
"Having arisen be baptized, and have your sins washed off (by) calling on the name of the Lord."
This last clause is supported by general biblical teaching as in Rom.10:13. (W.MacDonald)......... He had already called upon the name of the Lord and his sins had been washed away. Baptism was but symbolic of that operation. The only thing it actually did to Paul was got him wet.

===

So you follow your experts too. What a double standard you have for me and you!

It is not necessary that an aorist participle denote an action PRIOR to the main verb (Wallace, Grk Grammar ; Dana and Mantey, Greek Grammar,230) . It may occur simultaneously!

I suppose AT Robertson's Greek is as good as yours, and he candidly says that these words in 22:16 could be taken as evidence of baptismal regeneration. Robertson does not believe they do, but his argument is not grammatical but is theological.

I suppose that the Greek of Beasley-Murray who actually teaches Greek exegesis and writes Greek exegetical commentaries is as good as yours, but he disagrees with your suppositions re 22:16.

I suppose that Knowlings Greek is as good as yours and Knowling, Prof of NT Exegesis, in The Expositor's Greek Testament connects the calling to the baptism.

In Burton, Moods and Tenses, 65, it plainly states that an aorist participle may occur simultaneously with the main verb. I suppose Burton's competence in Greek equals yours.


===

Acts 2:38 "for the remission of sins" uses the preposition "eis" which in other places has been translated the equivalent "on account of" or "because of".

===

To render eis in Acts 2:38 as " because of" is likely incorrect. See TDNT I:539. Also: The Greek English Lexicon of the NT by BAG ; Thayer; Dana and Mantey. These ALL disagree with you!

Why don't you at the Greek in Mt 26:28 where there is the same construction. Should this be translated "because of remission of sins" IYO???

DA Carson (EBC) and Harris NIDNT, III:1187) question that eis EVER is used as you suggest.

===

You must be born of water and of the spirit.
The very fact that you tie baptism into this verse at all indicates that you believe in baptismal regeneration.

===

No! It does not because I am not saying baptism saves. I am saying that WB is an expression of faith and that that faith saves.

[ August 30, 2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UZThD:

You must be born of water and of the spirit.
The very fact that you tie baptism into this verse at all indicates that you believe in baptismal regeneration.

===

No! It does not because I am not saying baptism saves. I am saying that WB is an expression of faith and that that faith saves.

This here is the crux of the whole matter.
You believe that water means baptism. Whether or not water here represens faith in baptism that saves, it is all the same. You are simply playing a game of semantics. For as long as you substitute baptism for water, the forumla comes out in the end as baptismal regeneration.
Faith in baptism + faith in the Spiirit does not equal being born again, but rather baptismal regeneration. Equating baptism to water is a heresy. It redefines what "born again" means. That is either on of two things. Either you believe in the age old heresy of baptismal regeneration. Or you have simply become neo-orthodox in your beliefs, attaching new meanings (heretical ones) to standard theological terminology. Seventh Day Adventists are very good at this. Either way you look at it all boils down to the same thing--a belief in baptismal regeneration.
Jesus said you must be born again, not baptized. There is no way that baptism has anything to do with the new birth process. It goes contrary to everything written in Scripture. It goes contrary to everything written in John 3. You have to read baptism forcefully into that chapter. It has to forced into that passage by the bias of one's own beliefs. Baptism doesn't enter the equation in salvtion. You must be born again, not baptized--two entirely separate concepts one having nothing to do with the other.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
DHK

 

[Bluefalcon]

Can John be John for a minute? When Jesus was speaking directly to Nicodemus, he was speaking directly to Nicodemus, not to bilions of people 2000 years later. If he was speaking to billions of people 2000 years later, Nicodemus would have had no idea what he was talking about. He was speaking directly to Nicodemus, and Nicodemus still had no clue what he was saying. But he should have understood that as everyone was getting baptized with water by John for the repentance of sins, that is nothing until one is baptized with the Spirit by Jesus for salvation.

One can be born of blood, born of fleshly will, born of man's will, born of water baptism, etc., but that is nothing till he is born of God, born of the Spirit, etc. I think this is all Bill and I are saying.

Cheers, Bluefalcon