Saved by Water

[justbyfaith]

When I read my Bible, i understand what I am reading within its immediate context.

There is also a topical context that can be found concerning every scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:13 gives us this hermeneutic.

When people are normally accused of taking things out of context, it is normally true that the accuser simply does not want to believe what is related by the verse in question. They are hardening their hearts to what the verse is saying to them.

Normally when I quote a verse, I quote it with its immediate context in mind; for that is the context that I originally read it in.

The person who claims that it is quoted out of context is free to read the context of the verse that has been quoted; and I believe that in doing so they will find that the context does not contradict what is related by the verse.

For I believe that it is a first rule of hermeneutics that any singular verse will never be contradicted by its immediate context.

I suppose that those who believe that there are contradictions in the Bible might argue otherwise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Every believer is born naturally or physically (water) and born again (baptised by the Holy Spirit).

That is not really what Christ meant when He said you must be born of water. There would be no need to insist on that which is already a part of the natural process of childbirth. So what did Jesus mean? Water is a metaphor in Scripture for (a) the Holy Spirit and (b) the Word of God, and in this case the Gospel as the Word of God. So to be born of water is to be born again through the preaching of the Gospel and the receiving of the Word of God, since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:23-25) Of his own will begat [birthed] he us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

From "Free Bible Commentaries" on the internet-

"unless one is born of water and the Spirit" This is another THIRD CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE. There may be a contrast (so typical of John's writings) between

1. the physical versus the spiritual (no ARTICLE with "spirit")
2. the earthly versus the heavenly

This contrast is implied in John 3:6.
The theories for the meaning of "water" are

1. the rabbis use it of male semen
2. the water of child birth
3. John's baptism symbolizing repentance (cf. John 1:26; 3:23)
4. the OT background meaning ceremonial sprinkling by the Spirit (cf. Ezek. 36:25-27)
5. Christian baptism (although Nicodemus could not have understood it that way, first mentioned by Justin and Irenaeus)

In context theory #3, John the Baptist's water baptism and John's statement about the Messiah's baptizing with the Holy Spirit—must be the most obvious meanings. Birth, in this context, is metaphorical and we must not let Nicodemus' misunderstanding of the terms dominate the interpretation. Therefore, theory #1 is inappropriate. Although Nicodemus would not have understood Jesus' words as referring to later Christian baptism, John the Apostle often interjects his theology into the historical words of Jesus (cf. John 3:14-21).
Theory #2 would fit John's dualism of above and below, God's realm and the earthly realm. In defining these terms one must determine whether they are contrasting (#1 or #2) or complementary (#4).
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, mentions another option: that both words refer to one birth, an eschatological birth following Ezek. 36:25-27, which describes the "new covenant" of Jer. 31:31-34 (p. 42).
F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, also sees Ezekiel as the OT allusion behind Jesus' words. It may even have been a reference to proselyte baptism, which Nicodemus, a noted rabbinical teacher, must now do!

One may choose what they want. It should be clear that #5 cannot be what Jesus meant, since the idea of Christian water baptism was not known then.

But even John's baptism wasn't described as a "birth". It was described as a baptism of repentance, not birth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Are you going to address your glaring contradiction or not?

There is no contradiction in my mind.

OK then, you are just in denial. There is no sense in trying to have a discussion with someone who is in denial.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Paul SAID he was sent to preach the gospel, and NOT to baptize. Why hasn't that sunk in?

I have answered that contention.

Your answer failed to explain. If Paul, THE pre-eminent evangelist, believed that water baptism was required for salvation, he would have made that part of his gospel message. But he didn't do that. You can't show anywhere where he did.

His answer to the jailer proves that he didn't believe that water baptism was required for salvation.

His message to the Galatian believers in 3:2 and 5 also proves that salvation is by faith, with no water involved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
You've been given multiple verses that show that salvation is by faith, without ANY mention of water?

And if I place my faith in a promise of holy scripture that has to do with water, why do you judge me?

Your whole view is based on a verse that isn't even for you. You've been given multiple verses that very clearly do NOT include water baptism in the context of getting saved, receiving eternal life, etc.

All you've got is 1 verse, which was aimed directly at the crowd in Jerusalem who participated actively in Jesus' crucifixion.

btw, I'm not judging you. I'm pointing out error in your view. I'm judging your view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It is no contradiction.

Here, I'll try to explain it to you again.

Consider that a Spirit is a Person.

Now, the Father is a Spirit inhabiting eternity without flesh;

And the Son is the same Spirit inhabiting human flesh, and dwelling in time.

Thus He is a distinct Person from the Father while also being the same Person.

But if you can't comprehend that, I refer you to the following.

Isa 55:8, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9, For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

This is just strange. You STILL can't coherently explain why Jesus prays to His Father as "one Spirit". Why would He do that?

I've given a number of verses that prove that they are 2 separate Persons.

Again, a father cannot be his own son. That is impossible.
And a son cannot be his own father. Delirious is what that is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If someone gets baptized in Jesus' Name because of our teaching, what is the harm in that?

The HARM is teaching that person that they are saved ONLY IF they get water baptised. That is a false doctrine.

Suddenly they are deceived because they fulfilled the condition of a promise to receive the Holy Ghost, and remission of sins?

I will believe Paul WAY BEFORE I'd ever believe you. He told the Galatian believers that they received the Holy Spirit on the basis of faith in Christ, with NO MENTION of water baptism.

So Paul's writings refute your theory directly.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
I see a John 3:5 ERROR. "born of water" doesn't mean baptism. In fact, it CAN'T mean that.

Why can't it mean that?

Why would you think that Nicodemus would think of Christian baptism when Acts 2:38 hadn't even occurred yet.

Here's an excerpt from "Free Bible Commentary" on the internet:

"unless one is born of water and the Spirit" This is another THIRD CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE. There may be a contrast (so typical of John's writings) between

1. the physical versus the spiritual (no ARTICLE with "spirit")
2. the earthly versus the heavenly

This contrast is implied in John 3:6.
The theories for the meaning of "water" are

1. the rabbis use it of male semen
2. the water of child birth
3. John's baptism symbolizing repentance (cf. John 1:26; 3:23)
4. the OT background meaning ceremonial sprinkling by the Spirit (cf. Ezek. 36:25-27)
5. Christian baptism (although Nicodemus could not have understood it that way, first mentioned by Justin and Irenaeus)

In context theory #3, John the Baptist's water baptism and John's statement about the Messiah's baptizing with the Holy Spirit—must be the most obvious meanings. Birth, in this context, is metaphorical and we must not let Nicodemus' misunderstanding of the terms dominate the interpretation. Therefore, theory #1 is inappropriate. Although Nicodemus would not have understood Jesus' words as referring to later Christian baptism, John the Apostle often interjects his theology into the historical words of Jesus (cf. John 3:14-21).
Theory #2 would fit John's dualism of above and below, God's realm and the earthly realm. In defining these terms one must determine whether they are contrasting (#1 or #2) or complementary (#4).
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, mentions another option: that both words refer to one birth, an eschatological birth following Ezek. 36:25-27, which describes the "new covenant" of Jer. 31:31-34 (p. 42).
F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, also sees Ezekiel as the OT allusion behind Jesus' words. It may even have been a reference to proselyte baptism, which Nicodemus, a noted rabbinical teacher, must now do!

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
Are you going to address your glaring contradiction or not?

OK then, you are just in denial. There is no sense in trying to have a discussion with someone who is in denial.

I am not in denial; but you need to have the Lord open your eyes as to how the apparent contradiction in your mind is reconciled.

I will pray for you; but you should pray for this also.

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
Paul SAID he was sent to preach the gospel, and NOT to baptize. Why hasn't that sunk in?

Your answer failed to explain. If Paul, THE pre-eminent evangelist, believed that water baptism was required for salvation, he would have made that part of his gospel message. But he didn't do that. You can't show anywhere where he did.

His answer to the jailer proves that he didn't believe that water baptism was required for salvation.

His message to the Galatian believers in 3:2 and 5 also proves that salvation is by faith, with no water involved.

Paul tsught, in Romans 6:1-4, that baptism has something to do at least with sanctification. We come up out of the water to "walk in newness of life."

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
You've been given multiple verses that show that salvation is by faith, without ANY mention of water?

Your whole view is based on a verse that isn't even for you. You've been given multiple verses that very clearly do NOT include water baptism in the context of getting saved, receiving eternal life, etc.

All you've got is 1 verse, which was aimed directly at the crowd in Jerusalem who participated actively in Jesus' crucifixion.

btw, I'm not judging you. I'm pointing out error in your view. I'm judging your view.

You have judged that I am not placing my trust wholly in Christ and what He did for me because I have fulfilled the condition of a promise and also believe in that promise; and you have also have mentioned that you believe that I am not saved because I trust in that promise as an aspect of the salvation that God has given to me.

Acts 2:38 is given to the people that it was given to, and to their children, and to all that were afar off (v.39).

So, it is for me. I am one who was afar off.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is just strange. You STILL can't coherently explain why Jesus prays to His Father as "one Spirit". Why would He do that?

I've given a number of verses that prove that they are 2 separate Persons.

Again, a father cannot be his own son. That is impossible.
And a son cannot be his own father. Delirious is what that is.

1) Nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37).

2) Jesus was on earth and the Father in heaven. They are distinct from one another. One was in flesh and the other isn't. The One who is in flesh sets an example for us as to what it means to be victorious in the flesh, in showing us that we must pray.

 

[justbyfaith]

The HARM is teaching that person that they are saved ONLY IF they get water baptised. That is a false doctrine.

Since that is not what I teach, what is your beef with me?

I will believe Paul WAY BEFORE I'd ever believe you. He told the Galatian believers that they received the Holy Spirit on the basis of faith in Christ, with NO MENTION of water baptism.

So Paul's writings refute your theory directly.

Paul wrote, in Romans 6:1-4, that sanctification at the very last is procured through water baptism.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why would you think that Nicodemus would think of Christian baptism when Acts 2:38 hadn't even occurred yet.

John was baptizing in the wilderness by that time; and Jesus also baptized not many days later (though Jesus had His disciples do the baptizing as did Paul).

 

[justbyfaith]

Since that is not what I teach, what is your beef with me?



Paul wrote, in Romans 6:1-4, that sanctification at the very last is procured through water baptism.

*least*

 

[justbyfaith]

One was in flesh and the other isn't.

*is*

 

[KelbyofGod]

Regarding baptism for Cornelius' group...

FreeGrace2 said:
Regardless of how "quickly" Peter got them into water, the point remains that they were saved and receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE getting wet.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to suggest it was somehow needing to be tied into the same moment. I was saying it still needed to be done because of the purpose of water baptism (remission of sins) and the associated repentance.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

Regarding baptism for Cornelius' group...
I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to suggest it was somehow needing to be tied into the same moment. I was saying it still needed to be done because of the purpose of water baptism (remission of sins) and the associated repentance.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

@FreeGrace2 I should point out that YOU said 'they were SAVED and received the Holy Spirit." The bible doesn't say "saved" there. You added to the word of God by saying that.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

Precious friends, why should Confusion reign? water saves? Yes, And No,
depending upon Which Dispensation one prefers. ie:

IF you prefer God's Dispensation Of Prophecy And Law, then YES!

IF you prefer God's Dispensation Of Mystery And GRACE, then NO! ie:

Prophecy/Law
►►► The Twelve Were Sent to {water} baptize! ◄◄◄

The TWO Main (of 12) baptismS =

A) water, For remission of sins/induction into Israeli "priesthood!":
(Matthew_3:5-6; Mark_1:4; Luke_3:3; John_1:31; Luke 7:29-30; Acts_10:37)
(Matthew_28:19; Mark_16:16; Acts_2:38, 22:16; Ezekiel_36:25)
+
B) WITH The Holy Spirit, Poured Out By CHRIST, for power, signs And wonders!
(Isaiah_44:3; Matthew_3:11; Mark_1:8, 16:17-18;
Luke_24:49; Acts_2:17-18, 38, 8:15-17, 11:16)
Prophecy/Law

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That DIFFER!” {online}:

Mystery/GRACE! =
our "apostle to the Gentiles" for The Body Of CHRIST:
►►► Paul Was Not Sent to {water} baptize! Why Not?: ◄◄◄

Today: Only ONE Baptism = "BY" The ONE Spirit = God's OPERATION,
Spiritually Identifying members In (The ONE Body Of) CHRIST!!
(Ephesians 4:5; Colossians_2:12; Galatians_3:27;
Romans_6:3-4; ►►► 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJB! ◄◄◄)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: God's ONE Baptism Today? = ONE

OR, EQUALS TWO?

Is it not Possible That God's Answer Of "No water baptism, for
us Today," Under HIS Pure GRACE, absolutely vanquishes Satan's
{Many Severely DIVIDED denominations?} Confusion into oblivion!?

And Confusion STOPS reigning?
-------------------------
FULL "studies" here:
12 baptisms Rightly Divided From: ONE Baptism
----------------------------------------
Please be Richly Encouraged, enlightened, exhorted, and edified!
God's Simple Will!

Not sure I grasped your meaning or overall intent. Would you condense to a single sentence or two? Thanks. I did read some on the links you provided.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[oyster67]

If someone gets baptized in Jesus' Name because of our teaching, what is the harm in that?

They have placed their faith in something that cannot save. You will be held accountable in the end. Even if you do not care about their eternal destiny, you should consider you own.