What did Jesus mean?

[AV1611]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

Note: If you are KJO, please, please do not participate in this thread.

Question: Is KJO stands for King James Only?
We know that this is a Baptist Board and as far as I've learned fom the Baptists we're recognized as a King James Authorized Version users. Is the Baptists changed in this century?

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
The problem with your "LECTURE" Salamander.....

Is Jesus NEVER told Nicodemus he HAD to be born of the flesh.

Of course He didn't, that "knowledge" is sort of self-explanatory, so Jesus had to be speaking of the teaching as that "water", thus doctrine, thus the Word of God

Jesus told him he must be BORN AGAIN !

Yep, sure did.

It was Nicodemus who brought up the FLESH issue.He said how can a man enter his mothers womb a second time ? So Jesus answered his QUESTION, he didn't correct him he answered him. " Unless a man be born of water AND the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God "

Yep. So then Jesus made the clarification that the flesh amounts to nothing.

Jesus went on to explain the difference between the TWO so Nicodemus would understand what it meant to be BORN AGAIN. He needed something to help Nicodemus understand a NEW BIRTH.

Exactly. Thanks for strengthening my point, and concuring with the Word of God.

Except Nicodemus needed help, not Jesus.

And to align and define "water" and "flesh" as being synonymus introduces confusion to gthe text. That is why the clarification that the "water" be understood as "teaching/doctrine/Word of God" This is a doctrinal passage, not theological.

GET IT ! it really isn't that hard to understand !

OK, tell me what I didn't "get"?

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
PS. the problem people are having is that they are thinking Jesus was teaching Nicodemus and us that we must be born of water and the spirit.

When in reality all Jesus was doing when he said " you must be born of the water and the spirit " was ANSWERING Nicodemus's question and expanding on it. That was it, his MAIN teaching was a NEW BIRTH which involved the Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus came in the first place to give us new life.

If people can get that through their head it isn't that hard of a verse.

LOL, there you go again, trying to separate the work of the Spirit from the Word of God in salvation. NOdda chance!! Can't be done.

 

[Salamander]

"PS", "newbirth" is a "function" of the Holy Spirit, not an "involvement, as if He was assisted by another party or device.

 

[RightFromWrong]

What do you mean by this ?

LOL, there you go again, trying to separate the work of the Spirit from the Word of God in salvation. NOdda chance!! Can't be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PS", "newbirth" is a "function" of the Holy Spirit, not an "involvement, as if He was assisted by another party or device.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Salamander wrote.....Of course He didn't, that "knowledge" is sort of self-explanatory, so Jesus had to be speaking of the teaching as that "water", thus doctrine, thus the Word of God

No he didn't he was answering Nicodemus question he was teaching how he could be BORN AGAIN. he started teaching stating " you must be born again " then Nicodemus asked how can that be ? Then Jesus stopped to answer his question and then follwed through again with teaching and explaining the difference between the two examples, PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL. If he wasn't he wouldn't have said that which is FLESH then later he said That which is SEEN.

If the word water had anything to do with " washing of the word " looking at John 3:3-15 wouldn't the mention of the WORD or any other reference to the " washing of the WORD " be mentioned again ? But it isn't. But mention of the FLESH or the PHYSICAL is mentioned 5 times !

Thats why you must take it in context. More verses proving PHYSICAL birth and only 1 " possible " washing of the word verse.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Why Born of Water means PHYSICAL BIRTH makes more sense than the other views.

1) ANGELS and DEMONS cannot be saved they are spirit and Jesus did not die for them. So yes one has to be BORN OF THE FLESH. Demons are not going to heaven no matter what !

2) BABIES and very young children no matter what are saved, they DO NOT need the word of God to get saved they automatically receive Gods spirit when they die. People go to Hell not because they are sinners. " For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God ". But we go to Hell for rejecting the Gospel and what Christ did on the cross. Babies have no understand of Gods word, even those aborted in the womb.

3) Many people get save without the Gospel messsage, I know I did. I don't remember any scripture preached to me. I wanted in my heart for God to take over control of my life. and I want the JOY that the guy who witnessed to me had. From Grahm Kerrs bio he said he was all alone when he asked Jesus into his heart, I know of lots of testimonies where people just give their life to Christ without and scripture preached to them. They may have heard it along the way somewhere. But at the moment of salvation they didn't, now hearing the word after salvation helps us with our walk and fellowship with God which helps santify us and keeps us clean.

Something to think about

 

[Craigbythesea]

RightFromWrong wrote,

2) BABIES and very young children no matter what are saved, they DO NOT need the word of God to get saved they automatically receive Gods spirit when they die. People go to Hell not because they are sinners. " For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God ". But we go to Hell for rejecting the Gospel and what Christ did on the cross. Babies have no understand of Gods word, even those aborted in the womb.

Which science fiction novel have you confused with the Bible?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by AV1611:
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

Note: If you are KJO, please, please do not participate in this thread.

Question: Is KJO stands for King James Only?
We know that this is a Baptist Board and as far as I've learned fom the Baptists we're recognized as a King James Authorized Version users. Is the Baptists changed in this century?

Yes, KJO stands for King James Only. There is nothing wrong with a Baptist reading the King James translation of the Bible, but there are some people who believe and argue that only the King James translation of the Bible is the Word of God and that all other translations of the Bible are something other than the Word of God. When I started this thread, I politely asked that those who are KJO do not participate in this thread, and I had a number of reasons for making that request. And as you can see, your post has nothing to do with the subject that we are discussing. Nonetheless, you are very new to this message board and it may very well take you a while for you to get used to it and how it works. Thank you for joining and thank you for sharing with us.

 

[RightFromWrong]

So craig how do babies go to heaven ? They don't go by hearing the word OBVIOUSLY !

They are born of WATER though.

Or are you one of those who believe babies do not go to heaven ?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
So craig how do babies go to heaven ? They don't go by hearing the word OBVIOUSLY !

They are born of WATER though.

Or are you one of those who believe babies do not go to heaven ?

I believe what the Bible says about sin, babies, and salvation:

ALL of us, including All babies, have sinned in Adam. The wages of sin is death.

 

[RightFromWrong]

I knew it ! Nope wrong again !

ALL babies got to heaven even aborted ones. David when he was confronted by Nathan he said he would see his baby in heaven. 2 SAM 12:23 I'm sure I can find more examples.

See here is where your problem is with losing your salvation.

You do not understand that it ISN'T sin that sends you to HELL. It's your CONDITION that sends you there. One doesn't have to SIN to go to Hell, just the fact that we were born SEPERATED from a Holy God is enough. God told Adam and Eve that they would DIE if they ate of the tree of good and evil. They didn't die PHYSICALLY that day they died SPIRITUALLY
( death means seperation ).

MARK 3:28-29 says " Truly I say to you ALL SINS will be forgiven of man and whatever blasphemies they utter; BUT whoever blasphemes AGAINST the Holy Spirit NEVER has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL SIN !

Babies cannot blasphemy against the gospel. I don't know about you but I have never known a baby in the womb or a very young one who understood the human language, so how can he reject something he has never heard ? It is when a child hears the Gospel ( at whatever age that may be, my sons were 4 and 6 when they were saved ) and if he UNDERSTANDS the gospel and rejects it then he is held accountable.

Your CONDITION sends you to Hell not SIN !
Being in a new right relationship with God sends you to Heaven. Not doing good works or living right.

That is why Jesus told Nicodemus you must be BORN AGAIN ! AMEN

 

[Bluefalcon]

So there is a time when babies "lose their innocence" and become destined to hell after they are born? I guess this is the so-called "age of accountability". I guess it is different for everyone? Or are they destined to hell before they are born, but there is special grace for those who do not know right from wrong, who still "pisseth against the wall" so to speak?

 

[RightFromWrong]

MARK 3:28-29 says " Truly I say to you ALL SINS will be forgiven of man and whatever blasphemies they utter; BUT whoever blasphemes AGAINST the Holy Spirit NEVER has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL SIN !

 

[Craigbythesea]

RightFromWrong wrote,

You do not understand that it ISN'T sin that sends you to HELL. It's your CONDITION that sends you there. One doesn't have to SIN to go to Hell, just the fact that we were born SEPERATED from a Holy God is enough.

Please explain to me how adults are “born SEPERATED from a Holy God” but babies are not!

 

[Craigbythesea]

So there is a time when babies "lose their innocence" and become destined to hell after they are born? I guess this is the so-called "age of accountability". I guess it is different for everyone? Or are they destined to hell before they are born, but there is special grace for those who do not know right from wrong, who still "pisseth against the wall" so to speak?

Is it even remotely possible that the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are correct in believing that the saving grace of God is bestowed upon infants through water baptism on the basis of the faith of the parents or the pastor? Do dissenting Baptists have more Scriptural support for their “age of accountability” than do the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians for their theology regarding the salvation of infants?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Is it even remotely possible that the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are correct in believing that the saving grace of God is bestowed upon infants through water baptism on the basis of the faith of the parents or the pastor?

Is it not even remotely possible that you don't even understand the theology of some of the aforementioned denominations. Perhaps you should not be so forthcoming in those religions that you are not that well acquainted with. My wife grew up in a Presbyterian church. The Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration, and the Bible Presbyterians in particular do not believe that infant baptism saves. Salvation must come after that infant baptism. A person is only saved when they trust Christ as their Saviour. They are one of the most evangelical denominations that I know of, spreading the gospel very actively in third world nations.
Bible Presbyterians in no way believe that the waters of infant baptism save anyway, not at birth, not as an adolescent, not as an adult, not as a man dying on his deathbed--nada; nothing. You have it wrong. They believe that the gospel saves, not water, not baptism, not water, but the Christ of the gospel. Period. Don't speak of that which you know not.

Do dissenting Baptists have more Scriptural support for their “age of accountability” than do the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians for their theology regarding the salvation of infants?

Words have meanings. Bring to the table a dictionary if you do not uderstand plain English. A verse as simple as: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," demand that there be an age of accountability. It demands it because words have meaning, and a child must understand those words and be accountable for the comprehension of such before he/she can be saved. Therefore, there must of a consequence, be an age of accountablility. I do not teach it of my own will; but because the Bible demands it in the definitions of its own Scripture.
DHK

 

[RightFromWrong]

Craig you have very limited understanding of Gods word. I feel like you have to be walked through each step of doctrine. I already explained what it means for children to go to heaven and adults. but obviously you still are having trouble. The trouble you have is you have NO foundational background to scriptual truths. So you are wrong on so many issues of the Bible.
Makes me wonder if you are really a believer ?

One gets saved by responding to the Gospel, which is basically what Christ did on the cross for our sins, that he was sinnless who became sin for us, died to shed his blood for our sin was buried and rose 3 days later victorious over sin.

So when one hears and understands the gospel, if he accepts it and makes Jesus Lord of their life they get SAVED if they hear the gospel and do not respond they are damned to Hell unless at some time in their life they respond.

Babies whether in the womb or to young cannot understand their sin and the Gospel message, so of course they GO TO HEAVEN. Age of accountability, it is called. Why in the world would a loving God send millions of aborted babies or any baby for that matter to HELL ? Even those who are born with limited understanding , say retardation, whatever go to heaven even if they live to be adults.

MARK 3:28-29 says " Truly I say to you ALL SINS will be forgiven of man and whatever blasphemies they utter; BUT whoever blasphemes AGAINST the Holy Spirit NEVER has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL SIN !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bluefalcon]

It is my understanding that many Catholics believe that one is saved by grace through faith. But the fact is they still practice infant baptism. Why? Because infants have no knowledge of these things, and until they come to the point of either accepting or rejecting Christ, infant baptism, to Catholics, has a sort of conditionary salvific grace attached to it. A Catholic may reject this grace when he grows older by rejecting the faith; a Catholic may receive this grace fully when he accepts and follows the faith. So when was the person saved? Many Catholics say at the point of infant baptism, because of the conditionary salvific grace attached to it. Do they get baptized again after officially deciding to follow the faith? No. So there you have it.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Bluefalcon so when does the Catholic church become the foundation for ALL truth.

The Bible is our source for ALL truth.

The Catholic church beliefs are based solely on WORKS and worshiping false gods, mary and other saints.

Sorry but I'm not getting the point