Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Doesn't John 3:5 require baptism for salvation?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Betty View Post
    Cherished

    Thank you. I know I am sensitive sometimes. I worry because I think one word and say or type another. The other day I was using instant message to tell hubby I was fixing to cook the chicken but I typed that I was fixing to kick the chicken. Never noticed until hubby wrote back and asked what the chicken did to make me mad.
    You have a blessed day and thank you and Anddari for making me feel much better.
    betty
    Oh, God bless your sensitive heart! I don't know if you noticed, but before I fixed my reply, I spelled Buzz 'Buaa'. Talk about As far as the chicken story, I find that too funny, sounds like your husband has a sense of humor too. Lord knows we all make typos and mistakes. Also, when it comes to the meaty parts of scripture, many need it to be explained in a simple, clear, and concise way. There is nothing dumb about that, I assure you!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cherished View Post
      Oh, God bless your sensitive heart! I don't know if you noticed, but before I fixed my reply, I spelled Buzz 'Buaa'. Talk about As far as the chicken story, I find that too funny, sounds like your husband has a sense of humor too. Lord knows we all make typos and mistakes. Also, when it comes to the meaty parts of scripture, many need it to be explained in a simple, clear, and concise way. There is nothing dumb about that, I assure you!
      That's the sound he makes just before the "hahaha" while he hits the ban button...

      Seriously though, I am finding this thread very helpful.
      Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right. - Charles H. Spurgeon

      Comment


      • I most appreciate everyone's sincere and thoughtful input.

        If something I present is unclear, I very much appreciate anyone who will alert me to the fact. Feel free to raise a question or pose an objection that will guide me in further explanation to help clarify any issue I address.

        Over many years as I taught public school, my students loved me because, they said, I never criticized them for not understanding something, and I always broke things down still further until at last they "got it." While I generally taught English and literature, I also taught history and mathematics. My math students most appreciated that I could and did explain mathematics until they understood it.

        Many years ago I used this special skill to write programmed instruction training materials for industry, and used the same process to write a self instructional reading program for my students. My reading program raised my student's scores an average of two years in less than one semester. Twenty-one high school students that coaches had me tutor with my reading program were enabled to pass the ACT test with scores high enough to receive full athletic scholarships to college. The students publically, in the Detroit News, expressed their thankfulness to God for the help received from their teacher, Mr. Bookworm1711.

        I especially appreciate iSong6:3's response about the Hebrew "Mikveh." I have read and reread it carefully, and appreciate the spirit in which it is written.

        The problem with the concept of the "Mikveh" I face is that, so far as I have been able to determine, there is no mention or even allusion to "Mikvehs" anywhere in the Bible. In a post a page or so back Hootmon confirmed my assessment that it is not directly mentioned in the Bible.

        Of course, many things we believe as Christians as important points of doctrine are not explicitly stated in the Bible in the terms we use. Such subjects as the Trinity, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Pretribulation Rapture cannot be found in the Bible using a concordance!

        But from a linguistic standpoint, immersion as a mode is never expressed by the word "baptizo" in all of ancient and Biblical literature, according to the five-volume research study conducted by James W. Dale, who spent a lifetime in study of this matter.

        As for a tendency toward ritualism, sacramentalism, and worse, sacerdotalism, you will know from many posts I have written here on Rapture Ready that I have railed against such tendencies as much as anyone here, I would suppose. In many cases I directed attention to Galatians 5:4 to show that dependence upon any rite or sacrament puts us in grave danger. Paul says that to do so means "ye are fallen from grace," and that "Christ is become of no effect unto you." Any person or church depending upon a sacrament as a means of grace required for salvation probably does not have salvation. Of course, only God knows each individual heart, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:5 does caution us to "judge nothing before the time."

        Could it be that there is even more of a danger on the part of those who firmly believe in immersion to fall into the trap of sacerdotalism? To put such a heavy emphasis upon how baptism is performed surely dangerously points to that hazard of faith.

        That is one reason why I feel it is most important that you come to understand that some Bible believing Christians have very good Bible based reasons for rejecting immersion for one of the other modes, for the other modes are directly mentioned in the Bible, and immersion is never explicitly mentioned.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
          I most appreciate everyone's sincere and thoughtful input.

          If something I present is unclear, I very much appreciate anyone who will alert me to the fact. Feel free to raise a question or pose an objection that will guide me in further explanation to help clarify any issue I address.

          Over many years as I taught public school, my students loved me because, they said, I never criticized them for not understanding something, and I always broke things down still further until at last they "got it." While I generally taught English and literature, I also taught history and mathematics. My math students most appreciated that I could and did explain mathematics until they understood it.

          Many years ago I used this special skill to write programmed instruction training materials for industry, and used the same process to write a self instructional reading program for my students. My reading program raised my student's scores an average of two years in less than one semester. Twenty-one high school students that coaches had me tutor with my reading program were enabled to pass the ACT test with scores high enough to receive full athletic scholarships to college. The students publically, in the Detroit News, expressed their thankfulness to God for the help received from their teacher, Mr. Bookworm1711.

          I especially appreciate iSong6:3's response about the Hebrew "Mikveh." I have read and reread it carefully, and appreciate the spirit in which it is written.

          The problem with the concept of the "Mikveh" I face is that, so far as I have been able to determine, there is no mention or even allusion to "Mikvehs" anywhere in the Bible. In a post a page or so back Hootmon confirmed my assessment that it is not directly mentioned in the Bible.

          Of course, many things we believe as Christians as important points of doctrine are not explicitly stated in the Bible in the terms we use. Such subjects as the Trinity, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Pretribulation Rapture cannot be found in the Bible using a concordance!

          But from a linguistic standpoint, immersion as a mode is never expressed by the word "baptizo" in all of ancient and Biblical literature, according to the five-volume research study conducted by James W. Dale, who spent a lifetime in study of this matter.

          As for a tendency toward ritualism, sacramentalism, and worse, sacerdotalism, you will know from many posts I have written here on Rapture Ready that I have railed against such tendencies as much as anyone here, I would suppose. In many cases I directed attention to Galatians 5:4 to show that dependence upon any rite or sacrament puts us in grave danger. Paul says that to do so means "ye are fallen from grace," and that "Christ is become of no effect unto you." Any person or church depending upon a sacrament as a means of grace required for salvation probably does not have salvation. Of course, only God knows each individual heart, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:5 does caution us to "judge nothing before the time."

          Could it be that there is even more of a danger on the part of those who firmly believe in immersion to fall into the trap of sacerdotalism? To put such a heavy emphasis upon how baptism is performed surely dangerously points to that hazard of faith.

          That is one reason why I feel it is most important that you come to understand that some Bible believing Christians have very good Bible based reasons for rejecting immersion for one of the other modes, for the other modes are directly mentioned in the Bible, and immersion is never explicitly mentioned.
          Bookworm the problem remains that many are exhaustively bringing to your attention that you are unclear, even wrong. Several objections have been made, but you just use a few polite words, and continue on your path. I think what is being communicated here, or at least trying to be communicated, is that further explanation and reasoning on your part is not needed, as you are not biblical in your views. I appreciate that you have an extensive vocabulary, and that you have a gift for writing intelligently. However, wrong is wrong, no matter how many lovely words or ways you use. I think it would be to your benefit to actually listen to the things your brothers and sisters are pointing out to you. The issue is not lack of communication, nor is it ignorance to what you are saying. The issue is that many are disagreeing with your premise, and what you are taking to be biblical.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
            The problem with the concept of the "Mikveh" I face is that, so far as I have been able to determine, there is no mention or even allusion to "Mikvehs" anywhere in the Bible. In a post a page or so back Hootmon confirmed my assessment that it is not directly mentioned in the Bible.
            Not directly mentioned, but definately 'alluded to'.
            And GodH430 calledH7121 the dryH3004 land Earth;H776 and the gathering togetherH4723 of the watersH4325 calledH7121 he Seas:H3220 and GodH430 sawH7200 thatH3588 it was good.H2896
            (Gen 1:10)
            H4723
            מּקוא / מקוה / מקוה
            miqveh / miqvêh / miqvê'
            BDB Definition:
            1) hope
            1a) hope
            1b) ground of hope
            1c) things hoped for, outcome
            2) collection, collected mass
            Part of Speech: noun masculine
            A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H6960
            Same Word by TWOT Number: 1994c, 1995a
            The dry land emerged from a Mikveh
            The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
            Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
            (Psa 19:1b-2)

            Comment


            • Are you even reading what others are posting?

              Comment


              • Dear Cherished (and all),

                I know you have been reading what I have been posting. I thank you for that.

                I am sure you noticed that I have not only read what others have posted, but I have consistently and repeatedly mentioned posters by name and post number. I have often quoted what they said and answered the questions they raised.

                I must confess I have not yet had opportunity to do Joyb0218's original questions proper justice yet with regard to Acts 8:36-38, for I stopped in the middle of verse 38 to keep the post short enough to be understood, as you will recall.

                I answered the question brought up by LightOfMyLife at her Post 363 first.

                Sometimes the question boils down to this: are we willing to re-examine our traditions in the light of Scripture to be sure that they are in line with what the Bible actually teaches?

                Are we willing to honor the commitment to the Bible on the part of other Bible believing Christians who have a different view of a matter (a non-essential matter at that) when they base their view on the Bible? Remember that they, too, find firm support for what they believe and do. Unfortunately, their view has often been severely censored, as Mr. and Mrs. Toby told me when Mrs. Toby could not find any information on the subject.

                Are we willing to let them share the Bible with us to let us know why they believe what they do?

                I have not appealed to tradition, not even Jewish tradition, except as it is directly recorded in the Bible.

                In every case I have appealed to Scripture, and I trust you do not object to that.

                We all must have a heart committed to God and His written Word, and to the Lord Jesus Christ, that is willing to do as Mary, the sister of Martha did, and learn at the feet of Jesus. We can only do that now, of course, by being absolutely open to the truth as it is recorded for us in the Bible.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cherished View Post
                  Bookworm the problem remains that
                  many are exhaustively bringing to your attention that you are unclear, even wrong. Several objections have been made,
                  but you just use a few polite words, and continue on your path. I think what is being communicated here, or at least trying to be communicated, is that further explanation and reasoning on your part is not needed, as you are not biblical in your views. I appreciate that you have an extensive vocabulary, and that you have a gift for writing intelligently. However,
                  wrong is wrong, no matter how many lovely words or ways you use. I think it would be to your benefit to actually
                  listen to the things your brothers and sisters are pointing out to you. The issue is not lack of communication, nor is it ignorance to what you are saying. The issue is that
                  many are disagreeing with your premise, and what you are taking to be biblical.


                  Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
                  Dear Cherished (and all),

                  I know you have been reading what I have been posting. I thank you for that.

                  I am sure you noticed that I have not only read what others have posted, but I have consistently and repeatedly mentioned posters by name and post number. I have often quoted what they said and answered the questions they raised.

                  I must confess I have not yet had opportunity to do Joyb0218's original questions proper justice yet with regard to Acts 8:36-38, for I stopped in the middle of verse 38 to keep the post short enough to be understood, as you will recall.

                  I answered the question brought up by LightOfMyLife at her Post 363 first.

                  Sometimes the question boils down to this: are we willing to re-examine our traditions in the light of Scripture to be sure that they are in line with what the Bible actually teaches?

                  Are we willing to honor the commitment to the Bible on the part of other Bible believing Christians who have a different view of a matter (a non-essential matter at that) when they base their view on the Bible? Remember that they, too, find firm support for what they believe and do. Unfortunately, their view has often been severely censored, as Mr. and Mrs. Toby told me when Mrs. Toby could not find any information on the subject.

                  Are we willing to let them share the Bible with us to let us know why they believe what they do?

                  I have not appealed to tradition, not even Jewish tradition, except as it is directly recorded in the Bible.

                  In every case I have appealed to Scripture, and I trust you do not object to that.

                  We all must have a heart committed to God and His written Word, and to the Lord Jesus Christ, that is willing to do as Mary, the sister of Martha did, and learn at the feet of Jesus. We can only do that now, of course, by being absolutely open to the truth as it is recorded for us in the Bible.
                  We don't follow high churchisms and religioisities, water rituals, as dictated from organized religions, detract from God's true intentions for spiritual application.
                  We are not concerned why or how religions reduce God's intentions into liturgical sacramental mystical phenomenal practices.
                  Last edited by Buzzardhut; September 23rd, 2009, 03:22 AM.



                  Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
                  Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
                  Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

                  Comment


                  • Thank you, Hootmon, for your diligent research reflected in your Post 380. That was a very good, relevant "find."

                    Genesis 1:10

                    Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
                    The term in the Hebrew Scriptures, "mikveh," Strong Number 4723, is first used here.

                    It does not, in this context of course, have any reference to the baptism of persons for a religious purpose whatsoever by means of immersion.

                    But your find enables me to track down the other occurrences of the word.

                    According to my Englishman's Hebrew-Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, Numerically Coded to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the word occurs also at:

                    Exodus 7:19. upon all their pools of water, (margin, gathering of their waters).

                    Exo 7:19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
                    In this record of the great miracles wrought by God through Moses, turning the waters of Egypt to blood, there can be no reference here to the subject of baptism by immersion in this context. Nor do I see any reference here to places actually used for baptism.

                    The last relevant reference (the rest of the references are to a Hebrew homonym, according to what one of my Jewish missionary friends in Israel has told me: i.e., 1 Chronicles 29:15, abiding, or expectation; Ezra 10:2, hope; Jeremiah 14:8, O the hope of Israel; Jeremiah 17:13, the hope of; Jeremiah 50:7, the hope of) is Leviticus 11:36,

                    Lev 11:36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.
                    This is about as close as one might expect to get, but the reference is not to baptism by immersion, but to the idea that a sufficiently large quantity of water shall remain clean, though touched by a dead body of an animal or person. That goes back to what I mentioned before, that "running water" or what we call "fresh water" must be used, not stagnant water, for ritual cleansing and purifications, otherwise the first unclean thing or person that falls or steps into it renders the rest of the water unclean (See Numbers 19:17, where direct reference to "running water," Hebrew "living waters" is made; verse 19 includes explicit reference to the mode "sprinkle"):

                    Num 19:17 And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
                    Num 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
                    Num 19:19 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
                    Num 19:20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
                    Num 19:21 And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.
                    Young's Literal Translation is generally far more accurate when it comes down to the fine details of a passage, so I'll quote his translation for Numbers 19:19,

                    Num 19:19 `And the clean hath sprinkled it on the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day, and hath cleansed him on the seventh day, and he hath washed his garments, and hath bathed with water, and hath been clean in the evening.
                    Recall my discussion of "with/in" in a post above at my Post 345 on page 18 in connection with Leviticus 16:24.

                    Comment


                    • Dear Buzzardhut,

                      With regard to your comment at Post 383 I am in full and hearty agreement:

                      We don't follow high churchisms and religioisities, water rituals, as dictated from organized religions, detract from God's true intentions for spiritual application.
                      We are not concerned with why or how religions reduce God's intentions into liturgical sacramental mystical phenomenal practices.
                      I have not been talking about liturgy, but faithfulness to the Word of God written in the Bible.

                      Paul commanded us to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and the way we do this is to verify everything by comparing any claim to what is actually taught by the Bible.

                      The Bereans were commended in Acts 17:11, 12 for "Searching the Scriptures daily, to see if these things were so, therefore many of them believed."

                      That is exactly what I have done, and am doing, and I have shared some of my results with you.
                      Last edited by bookworm1711; September 22nd, 2009, 04:58 PM. Reason: Added sentence comment re sharing results with you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
                        Dear Buzzardhut,

                        With regard to your comment at Post 383 I am in full and hearty agreement:



                        I have not been talking about liturgy, but faithfulness to the Word of God written in the Bible.

                        Paul commanded us to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and the way we do this is to verify everything by comparing any claim to what is actually taught by the Bible.

                        The Bereans were commended in Acts 17:11, 12 for "Searching the Scriptures daily, to see if these things were so, therefore many of them believed."

                        That is exactly what I have done, and am doing, and I have shared some of my results with you.
                        sprinkling with water is a liturgical practice and has no merit in born again fundamental Christianity



                        Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
                        Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
                        Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
                          It does not, in this context of course, have any reference to the baptism of persons for a religious purpose whatsoever by means of immersion.
                          Your focus is too narrow.

                          What do you think the purpose of Noah's Flood was?


                          Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
                          ...that "running water" or what we call "fresh water" must be used, not stagnant water, for ritual cleansing and purifications, otherwise the first unclean thing or person that falls or steps into it renders the rest of the water unclean
                          That is the very definition of a Mikveh.
                          The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
                          Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
                          (Psa 19:1b-2)

                          Comment


                          • http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/...l_ancient_bath
                            The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
                            Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
                            (Psa 19:1b-2)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hootmon View Post
                              Your focus is too narrow.

                              What do you think the purpose of Noah's Flood was?


                              That is the very definition of a Mikveh.
                              Dear Hootmon,

                              I've been puzzled by your comment asking about the purpose of Noah's Flood and its possible connection to our discussion. I always enjoy your input. This time you've kept me thinking!

                              I appreciate your link to the news item about the ancient bath or mikveh in Israel. It had a nice picture with it.

                              I'm still studying and learning more about this subject.

                              In my researches today I came upon the following statement by Professor Dr. Francis Nigel Lee in a work titled From Circumcision to Baptism, page 3.

                              But fallen man constantly sins, even from his very birth onward.4 So God renewed His transgressed Covenant -- with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).

                              Then, Noah and all his covenanted household were baptized by rainwater from above. However, the wicked outside the ark were non-baptismally drowned to death by total submersion from beneath. Genesis 6:18 & 7:1-23 cf. First Peter 3:20f.
                              This is quite an observation to think about. I believe it is relevant to your comment, and perhaps provides a good answer.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bookworm1711 View Post
                                I've been puzzled by your comment asking about the purpose of Noah's Flood and its possible connection to our discussion.
                                It shouldnt be al that puzzling. Just remember that the dry land originally emerged from a Mikveh.


                                I appreciate your link to the news item about the ancient bath or mikveh in Israel. It had a nice picture with it.
                                Notice how large and deep it was, and how close it was to the Temple?


                                This is quite an observation to think about. I believe it is relevant to your comment, and perhaps provides a good answer.
                                Actually, it deftly avoids the point. Not to mention that it makes its own claim of 'baptism by rainwater from above'. That is also not the point.
                                in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach, who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah--an ark being preparing--in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone on to heaven--messengers, and authorities, and powers, having been subjected to him.
                                (1Pe 3:19-22)

                                Baptism is compared to the 'rising again of Jesus Christ'.

                                Tell me... How is Christ's resurrection relate to 'rainwater from above'?
                                The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
                                Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
                                (Psa 19:1b-2)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X