Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | EdB | 134731 | ||
To me there is only two things water could mean here. One natural birth, in the womb we are surrounded by water and at birth that water breaks or gushes forth. The other is baptism. To me this verse has double meaningJesus is using a play on words In one sense you must me born twice. Once naturally and the second spiritually. The other meaning is that a believer must be born of Water Baptism and of the Spirit, infilling of the Holy Spirit. Now we can allegorical, metaphorical, figurative and try to reason it to mean Jesus was talking about washing ones self in the word or trying to explain it as Jesus was talking about action of the Holy Spirit. Or even that Jesus was talking of the repentance or work of John the Baptist. However I was always taught to take the obvious unless it is equally obvious the passage was not to be taken literally. However I will let you guys argue it out. As for me it is settled. EdB |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | EdB | 134829 | ||
Doc Do I sense a touch of sarcasm, perhaps it is time for me to withdraw from this thread. Before I do let me just say this. I don't see a conflict. To me for this verse to mean both natural birth and baptism for the remission of sin agrees with every existing orthodox creed, and every other verse of scripture. This is my last response to you on this subject. Be blessed and I do have patience. EdB |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||