Results 5581 - 5600 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
5581 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134846 | ||
Actually, Brother Ed, that is a plausible possibility becaues of verse 6. That was the next verse I was thinking analyzing. But I get up early, so it will have to wait until tomorrow! Good night, brothers! Thank you for your patience! In Him, Doc |
||||||
5582 | Water alone means baptism? (Question 2) | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134827 | ||
Thank you, Mom. These suggestions will become more pertinent at a later stage. So lets hang on to them. Right now, though, we are looking at the whole passage there in John 3 where Christ's comment is made. We are trying to see if there are any clues in the context of the incident in which the words were spoken (i.e., verses 1 through 21). In Him, Doc |
||||||
5583 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134825 | ||
Did that particular quote come before or after Tertullian lost his good standing with the church? So that account in Acts 10 is an exception to the norm. Ah. I see. Very enlightening. (By the way, I actully knew that Charles Finney was not alive in the third century. Honest I did!) |
||||||
5584 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134820 | ||
Thank you, Brother Ed. That principle (take the obvious meaning) is indeed one of the many principles of sound literary interpretation. However, you forgot the codicil: Take the obvious interpretation unless that interpretation contradicts what is set out more clearly in other passages. Remember the phrase analogia totius scripturae? Scripture interprets itself -- the total context of what the Bible has to say must be taken into account. These were hard won principles that have prevented a world of apostasy, heresy, and error. There are other principles of literary interpretation that must be applied as well. "Taking the obvious meaning" is not the most important of these principles. There is also the principle of progressive revelation. Christ was speaking to one of the best-of-the-best Rabbis of that day. The conversation was taking place in a specific, historical context. It was taking place in a specific point of Christ's ministry. Context is ignored at the cost of truth itself. I'm glad that the significance of John 3:5 is settled for you, Ed. I beg you to be patient with your lesser bretheren as we wrestle with the Word. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5585 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134725 | ||
You may be right, brother Ed -- but that is circulus in probando. If the early church father's saw the word water in John 3:5 as meaning Christian baptism, then *why* did they see it that way? By what reasoning did they draw this conclusion? These are the questions in which I am interested. Regarding the Ethiopian, his statement in Acts 8:36b is "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Again, there is a clear connection between water and baptism. Thus, it is not of the same construction as John 3:5. |
||||||
5586 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134720 | ||
Not that I'm one to overwork a metaphor... I'd say that most modern Protestants have misplaced their clothes... while their preachers and teachers tell them that they -- sans garb -- are at the height of sophistication and fashion! Meanwhile some, sensing their nakedness, would be happy to don the a-go-go outfit no matter what it fails to cover. But, as I said, I'm not one to overwork a metaphor. :-) |
||||||
5587 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134718 | ||
Hi, Dalcent! Thank you for drawing our attention to these quotes. You're right! Those seven quotes do conclusively indicate that their author's understood the word water in John 3:5 to be Christian baptism. I do not mean to equivocate or quibble... However, what you have brought to our attention is that these men interpreted John 3:5 in this way; not *why* they interpreted it this way. The latter question is what would bear light on this issue. (Although it is very interesting that these men saw it this way. By the way, are all these men considered authoritative by the Church of Rome?) The reason that Acts 10:47 does not fit the prescribed parameters of the question is because it specifically mentions baptism. From my review of the word water in the NT, some other word always accompanies it when baptism is the intended meaning. Peter said, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (NASB) But, if he had said, "Surely no one can refuse water for these who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" It would have been similar in structure and usage to the way the word was used in John 3:5. Nevertheless, Peter is talking about baptism *subsequent* to receiving the Holy Spirit. While Christ is talking about something that occurs *simultaneous* with receiving the Holy Spirit. I hope that I have clarified things rather than making them more obscure! In Him, Doc PS Wasn't Tertullian a Montanist, or am I mixing him up with someone else? |
||||||
5588 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134703 | ||
Hi, Colin... Foxe is quoting Hegesippus. Although we don't have a lot of Hegesippus' original works, we do have the following: "The brethren then, when the prison was opened, prayed Peter to go thence, and he would not, but at the last he being overcome by their prayers went away. And when he came to the gate, as, Leo witnesseth, which is called Sancta Maria ad passus, he met Jesu Christ coming against him, and Peter said to him: Lord, whither goest thou? And he said to him: I go to Rome for to be crucified again, and Peter demanded him: Lord, shalt thou be crucified again, And he said: Yea, and Peter said then: Lord, I shall return again then for to be crucified with thee. This said, our Lord ascended into heaven, Peter beholding it, which wept sore. And when Peter understood that our Lord had said to him of his passion, he returned, and when he came to his brethren, he told to them what our Lord had said." Now, anything that is extra-biblical should be taken with a grain of salt. That written, if we assume that Higesippus' tale is accurate -- and it cannot be verified nor do we have any other word than his -- look closely at the account. The vision of Christ did not say that Christ *needed* to be crucified a second time. The vision was not -- strictly speaking -- stating anything of a doctrinal nature. In fact, Peter understood it to mean that he needed to return to his jailers rather than flee from the persecution that he faced. As to whether Peter was ever actually in Rome or not, I cannot comment with any conviction. Frankly, I have not studied the question. Off the top of my head, I'd tend to take Hegesippus' word for it. After all, this story sounds "Peter-like." If you know of evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in hearing about it. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5589 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134620 | ||
I think Dalcent would call them "wellies," if I recollect correctly. No doubt a valuable piece of equipment with as much magniloquence on dogma as we get around here. Maybe we should change the title to Opinion Study Forum. :-) | ||||||
5590 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134615 | ||
You are committing a logical fallacy here. Our question is regarding the word "water" and its use to mean baptism by the church. Setting the actual question aside for a moment: Let us assume, for a moment, that your priest's doctrine of baptismal regeneration is true. In Acts 10:47 the baptism clearly occurs *after* the Holy Spirit is received, not simultaneous with it. If receiving the Holy Spirit is possible only for the regenerate, then you have a contradiction. At any rate, Acts 10:47 still has no bearing on the original question: Do we have any other passages in scripture where the word "water" by itself means baptism? |
||||||
5591 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134613 | ||
Some dictionaries do, indeed, describe it as offensive. I've been re-reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs. He uses the term frequently, but apparently without anchor. Some of the martyrs were much more explictly derogatory in their epithets. No, indeed, I meant no offence. Forgive my solecism. Since it troubles you, I will avoid the use of the word in the future. |
||||||
5592 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134608 | ||
Very interesting, Dalcent. However, I am not disputing the doctrine nor it's historicity. We are discussing the interpretation of John 3:5. None of these quotes address or make mention of this verse. Thank you, however, for bringing these quotes to the fore. They are, as I said, very interesting. | ||||||
5593 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134605 | ||
The word water ("hudatos") does not appear in Titus 3:5 (anywhere else in epistle), therefore it does not meet the prescribed qualifications of my question. Let's keep focus, Dalcent. We can debate the meaning of "regeneration" in a different thread. |
||||||
5594 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134603 | ||
Since Acts 10:47 includes the word "baptism," not even separated by a conjunctive, it does not fit the prescribed qualifications. If anything, it detracts from the argument. In John 3:5 the word "and" is not the Greek "de" but rather "kai." The former is a simple conjunction. The latter is copulative conjunction. This means that the two phrases ("water" and "spirit") occur in simultaneity. Clearly, in Acts 10:47, the people who are to be baptized have received the Holy Spirit prior to the baptism. |
||||||
5595 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134600 | ||
Dalcent, I did not mean to imply that your interpretation was "goofy." I am not certain on what basis you conclude that there actually was concensus for 1600 years. Nevertheless, assuming that that is true, one might suppose that there was once a reason for such an interpretation. It is the reason behind this interpretation that interests me. I understand that you are obligated to believe a specifc interpretation. I am not denegrating nor traducing that obligation nor your tenacity. Let's not lose focus on working through the logic. This is, after all, a Bible *study* forum. |
||||||
5596 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134553 | ||
Yes, of course it is, Emmaus. I'm happy to hear it. We'd rather let the Word do its own interpreting, thank you. We tend to find it more persuasive that way. These sorts of interpretations are important enough to apply a scholarly lucubration rather than leave them to the prescribed, traditional opinions of others, no matter how joyfully embraced. (By this, of course, I mean you to take no offence. It is only offered by way of explanation.) On the other hand, maybe you can find something Jerome had to say on this passage, it might offer some insight. Anything else? Maybe there is a record of deliberation on this topic somewhere in Romish literature that predates your authorities decision to permit only the single view? Thank you, again, for your comments. |
||||||
5597 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134548 | ||
Good posts and good points, brother. Thank you. I'm trying to work this out for myself. :-) More fun that way! | ||||||
5598 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134546 | ||
Hi, brother Ed. As often as I hear the question "is baptism necessary for salvation" I wonder why people aren't asking "is salvation necessary for baptism?" :-) These passages you cite connect water and baptism very clearly. We can be confident that baptism involved the use of water. However, they don't quite fit the bill for what I am seeking. We have frequent mention of baptism without mention of water. We have frequent mention of water without baptism. But we only seem to have this single verse that uses water as a synonymn (or metaphor) for bapitsm. At least, I haven't found another one yet. Thank you for your observations. Tomorrow I'll look at every occurance of hudotos in the New Testament and see if I can dig a similar turn of phrase. (Interesting that at first blush I can't even find a later quote of Christ from John 3.) |
||||||
5599 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134542 | ||
As I said, Emmaus, it was not my intent to provoke you. I understand that you are obligated to embrace this position in order to retain your good standing in the eyes of Rome. Truly, I apologize for trigging your quite natural reaction. Please consider my original question as being addressed to those who embrace sola scriptura. Thank you, however, for taking the time to reply. | ||||||
5600 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 134526 | ||
The Latin Vulgate actually uses the words "Holy Spirit" instead of "Spirit." However, your conclusion doesn't eliminate other interpretations. Ephesians 5:26 is clearly metaphorical. It speaks of the application of the Word in cleansing, baptism isn't mentioned in the context at all. Titus 3:5 is speaking of regeneration, which is a something that God does on a spiritual level. Again, baptism isn't even mentioned. Is your interpretation of this verse (John 3:5) one that is required of you by Rome? If so, I apologize for provoking you and Dalcent by this question -- that wasn't my intent. I am seeking a more specifically Biblical interpretation rather than a traditional one. As I said to Dalcent, if we can find another passage where the word "water" alone is used in the same way then we can definitively conclude that Christ meant it to be baptism. If not, we will have to seek other ways to handle it. This would just be the easiest and the first step. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 ] Next > Last [302] >> |