S
someotherguy
Guest
Yes, really.
I didn’t say it wasn’t important. I said that it isn’t a part of the Gospel.
How can I remove something that wasn’t there in the first place?
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
John 4:1. Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.
Mt. 28:19. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Both of those references are in the Gospels.
I
ibkc
Guest
Also:
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
**
John 3:5**
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
John 3:22
After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
You’ve been shown from the Scriptures (Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not a book) that being “born again” is what happens in baptism, yet you still disbelieve the Scriptures.
I never said that I was saved by works alone, but by faith working through love, just as the Bible says. It’s not my works, but God working in and through me that are part of the process of salvation. I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.
Sacred Tradition is how you have 27 New Testament books in your Bible. Sacred Tradition is how you know about the Trinity - that word is not found in Scripture. Catholics (not just Roman Catholics, that’s only one of the 23 Catholic Rites,all in communion with one another; all are Catholic, yet not all are Roman Catholic.) do not say that Tradition is all we need. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition go together.
M
mozart-250
Guest
A plain reading of the book of Acts would suggest you are wrong here (as well as a plain reading of the Scriptures Edwin cited).
The burden of proof rests upon you, if you want to insist that I not take Scripture by its plain reading.
Your say so proves nothing.
Disclaimer: As a non-Catholic I still have many open questions in my mind concerning the many aspects of Baptism. However, the point still remains that if somebody suggests I not adopt the plain reading of a passage of Scripture, the burden of proof rests upon that person who makes that proposition. Particularly when the plain reading of Scripture matches the historical reading of Scripture.
So I am awaiting a good reason why I should not read the many passages cited here plainly.
M
mozart-250
Guest
I actually had that Scripture in mind. If anything is “The Gospel”, the “Great Commission” would be.
S
someotherguy
Guest
a) because they’re out of context.
b) because they are not taken in light of the analogy of scripture
S
someotherguy
Guest
First, nobody has shown any verse that says that we’re born again through baptism.
Second, both Jesus Christ and scripture are referred to as “the word of God”.
Yeah, good luck with that. The Bible says that we can be saved and can be assured that we are saved.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Jesus Himself says so in John 3:5.
Scripture is the written word of God, Jesus is the Word of God. I worship Jesus, the Word in the Church He founded; not the Bible.
I am not denying that we can be saved, am I? I can have assurance that I am saved now, but I won’t be completely saved until I get to Heaven and sin no longer has any hold on me.
Cite the chapter and verse where the word “Trinity” is found in the Bible, then, please.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Your say so is not proof.
S
someotherguy
Guest
Actually, John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism.
You shouldn’t worship the Bible but you should defer to it’s authority.
The Bible doesn’t make any disctinction between “completely saved” and “kind of saved” or “temporarily saved”.
If you’re not completely saved now, then you need to get saved before you stand before God and are judged for your sin.
The word “Trinity” or the teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity?
C
Contarini
Guest
Not in the last few posts, you haven’t. Why are you so coy about it?
Clearly you are not interested in having a substantive Biblical discussion. Is it because you don’t know the Bible as well as you want us to believe, or are you just stringing us along for fun?
You are one of the poorest defenders of your position I’ve seen on this forum.
Edwin
D
deb1
Guest
I am not trying to harp on you. I just want an answer to the question. What would you suggest that we call the type of Protestants that we are referring to? Should we call them Christian extremist-that would seem more offensive to me.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Actually the text does use the word “water”. Maybe I have a mistranslation or something…
A plain reading of this text would interpret “water” as…umm…water.
So if this does not refer to baptism then logically either:
- It does refer to water, but in another (Scriptural) context or
- It does not refer to water
But maybe I overlooked something obvious. Maybe there something else in Scripture that involves water, that has at least the prominence in Scripture that baptism has, and that at least appears to make sense.
But please don’t pick out a random meaning of water that you can not substantiate credibly. At the least baptism passes the credibility test here. That is better than some of the alternate explanations I have read.
If you propose that I not interpret this as…“water”…the burden of proof rests upon you as to why it should not be interpreted plainly.
S
someotherguy
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Everyone believes in the analogy of Scripture. But we mean different things by it. It’s your job to explain and defend what you mean by it.
Edwin
M
mercygate
Guest
Not quite. My KJV Bible reads: “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” (Eph 5:25-26). That is quite different from of the word.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Just because Jesus referred to himself as the door in John 10:9, it does not necessarily follow that this passage should be interpreted figuratively. Otherwise you can get me to believe anything simply by dismissing opposing passages as figures of speech.
Ah…finally you might be bringing an alternative passage of Scripture to the table (it was pulling teeth…but we got there).
I looked in my Strong’s concordance and couldn’t find the passage of Scripture, could you please cite the Scripture. Ah thanks MercyGate…Ephesians 5:25-26…my Bible says “with the word” but anyway…probably a different translation thing…
However (assuming this is in Scripture…which I seem to recall), that does not mean we have the best fit here. At this point it is just a logical possibility (as well as baptism is). You (since you are the one making the assertion here) still need to logically eliminate the possibility of baptism being the water being referenced in John 3:5.
If you can not do that, then at best we have a Scriptural ambiguity where folks argue the same stuff back and forth ad-nauseum but in the end nobody proves their case. When we have this case, I would propose that a little humility on all parts is in order, don’t you think.
I believe there are analogies in Scripture. But not on your say so.
S
someotherguy
Guest
I didn’t say analogies in scripture. I said the analogy of scripture.
And, for the record, there are no analogies in scripture.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Why don’t you define the term so that everybody is on the same page.
Well, that is a separate topic I suppose (really this should be another thread methinks).
- Status