Sinful union?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by KwaiQ

The direct evidence of the scriptures I have quoted are huge theologically for you and yours. Explain why God considers it necessary for salvation.

Acts 2:38
Mark 16:16
Matt 28:18
John 3:5

If your interpretation of certain scriptures leads you conclude something that does not follow common sense then you should rethink your interpretation. You still haven't answered the theological problem I raised. With all due respect, I had expected more.

The scriptures you list do not present a theological problem for my position at all.

Acts 2:38 can be dealt with in a couple of ways depending how one ultimately decides to interpret the word "eis" in the phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins." If the word is seen as non-purposive then it could easily be understood that baptism is to be performed "with a view toward" the remission of sins which takes place in repentance. If the word is seen as purposive, then one can realize baptism was the outward expression of "repentance for the remission of sins" (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4). Thus, one was to repent and let his baptism (of repentance for the remission of sins - Lk3:3; Mk1:4) be in the name of Jesus Christ to declare that the repentant heart had trusted in Jesus Christ for deliverance from sin.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Mark 16:16 presents no problem again for several possible reasons:

1) A person could simply take the position that the end of chapter 16 was not in the original manuscripts as is contended by many. I personally do not lean toward this view but it is certainly one.

2) One could realize that Christ does not say the one who is not baptized will be damned. If this was his intented meaning then there were certainly other ways he could have clearly made this point, but he does not.

3) Just because baptism is mentioned with believing in Christ's statement does not automatically mean baptism is necessary for salvation. You cannot make this assumption. Consider the following like statement: "He that goes through the proper process of legal marriage and wears a wedding ring shall be married, but he that does not go through the proper process of legal marriage shall be considered unwed." It would be wrong to suggest that in order to be wed one MUST wear a wedding ring. While it stands as an outward expression and token of love, the wearing of the wedding ring has no bearing on the marriage status of our hypothetical person.

Similarly, while the believer who is baptized shall be saved, it would be mistaken to jump to the conclusion that the believer who is not baptized would be damned. Christ did not say this at all. He says the one who does not believe is damned..... period. With a proper cultural understanding of baptism as the outward expression of repentance and faith it can be rightfully concluded that the act has nothing to do with salvation before God. While it does stand as a visual token of salvation to the church, it has no bearing on effecting salvation of the soul.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Matthew 28:18-19 teaches only that baptism is part of the discipling process. But this does not mean baptism remits sin or is part of the new birth. That would be an incorrect assumption from this passage.

Bottom line, there is another plausible interpretation of this passage which should be considered.

John 3:5 has a variety of interpretations as well. The issue usually surrounds the meaning of the phrase "born of water." It has been defined as amniotic fluid, seminal fluid, physical water, water baptism, and even more.

As I've written in another thread on this forum:

I understand the underlying Greek structure of John 3:5 speaks of a single birth and not two. This single birth is one "of the Spirit." I believe the word "water" in the phrase "born of water" is a spiritual metaphor. By using this metaphor Christ places emphasis on the single new birth "of the Spirit." The author uses this same water/spirit metaphor in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39). It makes sense we recognize the metaphorical use here.

If we also recognize the word "KAI" has more than one meaning, such as is shown in 1Corinthians 15:24 which states, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, KAI (even) the Father," we can see that John 3:5 is not offering two separate and distinct elements of a single birth but simply an emphasis on the single birth.

John 3:5 can be understood this way, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water KAI (even) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

"Born of water even of the Spirit" brings to mind a later usage of this same metaphor in John 7:37-39 where it is, in fact, parenthetically explained that the metaphor "water" is a reference to the Spirit (vs39 But this spake he of the Spirit...).

That the remainder John chapter 3 jumps directly to further discussion on being born of the Spirit gives added strength to the metaphorical position.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Could you please directly answer my concerns listed in my previous post?

I fear you are teaching a form of Christianity without the cross.

[KwaiQ]

Nice to talk with you Adino. I'm afraid I am going to bow out... too many pots on the burner elsewhere for me to effectively keep the conversation going.

God bless!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by KwaiQ

Nice to talk with you Adino. I'm afraid I am going to bow out... too many pots on the burner elsewhere for me to effectively keep the conversation going.

God bless!

I've enjoyed our discussion. Thank you for your time. God bless, friend.

[SDG]

And still world champion .....

[mizpeh]

Here's an interesting article on Jewish baptisms "Mikveh".

http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=363

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Here's an interesting article on Jewish baptisms "Mikveh".

http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=363

Good article, mizpeh.

Excerpted from the article:

At first glance, a Mikvah looks like little more than a small swimming pool. The water is usually about chest high, large enough for three or four people to stand in comfortably. For easy access, there are stairs leading into the water of the Mikvah.

If you look more closely, you will see a small hole, two or three inches in diameter, just below the water line of one wall of the pool. This hole may appear insignificant, but it is what actually gives this pool its status as a Mikvah.

Just opposite this small hole, you will notice a removable cover over a "Bor" (a pit), which is the essential part of the Mikvah. This Bor is a small pool by itself, and it is filled with natural rain water. The rain water must enter the Bor in essentially a natural manner, as will be discussed in a later section. Under certain conditions, spring water or melted snow or ice can also be used.

There are two other requirements for the Bor aside from containing natural rain water. First, it must contain at least forty "Sa'ah." The Sa'ah is an ancient Biblical measurement, equivalent to approximately five gallons of water, so that the Mikvah contains approximately 200 gallons of rain water.

The second requirement is that the Bor must be a pit built directly into the ground. It cannot consist of any kind of vessel that can be disconnected and carried away, such as a barrel, vat or tub. Under some conditions, however, it can be built directly into the upper story of a building.

Since you hold that proper baptism is necessary for salvation and Jewish baptisms were recognized only if performed in proper ritual mikvahs or running natural waters are you willing to remain consistent and recognize that all baptisms performed outside of these necessary standards are invalid, thus ineffective for salvation?

Oh consistency, thou art a jewel! (G.T. Haywood)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Adino

Good article, mizpeh.

Excerpted from the article:
Since you hold that proper baptism is necessary for salvation and Jewish baptisms were recognized only if performed in proper ritual mikvahs or running natural waters are you willing to remain consistent and recognize that all baptisms performed outside of these necessary standards are invalid, thus ineffective for salvation?

Oh consistency, thou art a jewel! (G.T. Haywood)

Adino,

I'm will be coming back to this thread but in answer to this post. NT water baptism is done where there is water "Look here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized" Enough water to be immersed. I was baptized in a bathtub and came out feeling clean on the inside.

The Mikvah is an interesting ritual but not scriptural. I've never read about it in the Bible. So it must be a tradition of man and not a law of God. Therefore all the requirements of the Mikvah aren't necessary.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Adino,

I'm will be coming back to this thread but in answer to this post. NT water baptism is done where there is water "Look here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized" Enough water to be immersed. I was baptized in a bathtub and came out feeling clean on the inside.

The Mikvah is an interesting ritual but not scriptural. I've never read about it in the Bible. So it must be a tradition of man and not a law of God. Therefore all the requirements of the Mikvah aren't necessary.

Sorry, mizpeh, I must have misunderstood your previous post. You were making points concerning water baptism and then posted an article on the Jewish mikvahs which most scholars will agree were most likely used to baptize those on the day of Pentecost. I thought you were using the article to support your views on water baptism.

I agree that the requirements of Mikvah are not necessary for salvation, in fact, I would take it further and say NONE of the requirements of the Mikvah are required.... because baptism itself is not required.

Remember that baptisms in the NT were baptisms unto repentance for the remission of sins. It can be strongly argued that Peter's baptism in Acts 2:38 was the same, it was a baptism of "repentance for the remission of sins." The ritual of baptism outwardly declared a remission of sins which came in repentance.

As I said before concerning Acts 2:38

....one can realize baptism was the outward expression of "repentance for the remission of sins" (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4). Thus, one was to repent and let his baptism (of repentance for the remission of sins - Lk3:3; Mk1:4) be in the name of Jesus Christ to declare that the repentant heart had trusted in Jesus Christ for deliverance from sin.

Sorry for the misunderstanding

[SDG]

bump

[Adino]

Since the core passages used to determine the water/spirit position on the new birth each have very plausible, if not more probable, alternative interpretations.....

Since it is historically supported that the water/spirit position was developed by those in early 20th century American Oneness Pentecostalism who readily admitted they were teaching something newly revealed from heaven......

Since there is absolutely no historical evidence that the position existed prior to these men......

..... how can we, in all good conscience and integrity of heart, hold to the doctrine?