Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 1st 400 yrs. "all" agreed on John 3:5 | John 3:5 | arrow1 | 113236 | ||
I would like someone to quote just once during the first 400 years of Christianity anytime, anywhere, anyone referring to John 3:5 as referring to something other than water baptism, if that's the incorrect interpretation, surely one person would have complained about it! | ||||||
2 | 1st 400 yrs. "all" agreed on John 3:5 | John 3:5 | Emmaus | 113317 | ||
Arrow1, I know and respect the men who have responded to your question. I am with you on this question, but you are spitting into a hurricaine with this question on this forum. Been there, done that. One point I would like to make. I hate the term "water baptism" because it intentionally excludes the Spirit. Christian baptism is baptism "by water and the Spirit." I assert that baptism that is merely "water baptism" is not Chritian baptism at all. It is devoid of grace and all meaning and a pointless work of men rather than a work of Christ in and through his Church, which Chritian baptism is. But I doubt most of my friends here who reject the instrumental efficacy of "water baptism" would want to see their own baptism that way. Maybe because it wasn't way. Maybe because it was efficaious even if they do not believe it was. It is also worth noting that the Creed that came out of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. professes "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Many that love the profession on the Trinity at Nicea would reject those same Fathers' their profession on baptism. Emmaus |
||||||