DaveH wrote: > Until I know what you and DavidM define it, I can't say > one way or the other.� All I can tell you is what I > understand the Bible says......and that is that without > baptism, one cannot be fully saved.�
For the record, I do NOT believe that baptism is a requirement without which nobody can be saved. If I understood John 3 the way DaveH does, that the water there specifically speaks of baptism, then I would have to agree with him that baptism would be a requirement without which a person could not enter the kingdom of God. However, I believe that in that passage, the water refers to our physical existence, which is mostly water. I believe this because Jesus contrasts spirit and flesh in this passage, saying, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit, marvel not that I said ye must be born from above." Being born of water is being born of this earth, of the flesh, and being born of the spirit is being born from above. That is how I see it. DaveH wrote: > That is why I believe some of the early Christians > practiced baptism for the dead.� Otherwise, it would > have not been necessary (in their eyes.) I believe that some early Christians did interpret water in John 3 as baptism, and I also believe that some early Christians considered water baptism as absolutely necessary for salvation. Because of this understanding, I think that some of them did practice vicarious baptism for the dead. Nevertheless, I think this practice was superstitious, and their practice of it is no more justified than the man in 1 Cor. 5 who was committing fornication with his father's wife. Just because some did it does not make it right. DaveH wrote: > I believe some passages (that DavidM does not necessarily accept) > even clarify the point further.� I accept the passages as Scripture. I just do not accept your interpretation of it. DaveH wrote: > Jesus says in Jn 3:5......".....Verily, verily, I > say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and > of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." > ...To me, Judy, that passage is pretty self explanatory, > unless one is compelled to think 'born of water' really > means birth.� Judy interprets "born of water" in the passage to be talking about being born of the Word of God. So even though we differ on what the water in this text refers to, her interpretation is consistent with my viewpoint that water baptism is not necessary for entering the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, I disagree with Judy's understanding, not because it creates any theological difficulties, but because the text itself, when Jesus introduces the term "water," is answering a question about entering the mother's womb for a second time. Furthermore, in that answer, Jesus refers to flesh being flesh and spirit being spirit. I naturally equate water with flesh in this passage because of what the text itself says. I see nothing directly in this passage that equates water with the Word, although I do recognize the truth that water is symbolic of the Word of God in many other passages. Just because water symbolizes the Word of God in some passages does not mean that it always symbolizes the Word. For example, in John 7:38, water refers to the Spirit rather than the Word of God. I also disagree with DaveH's understanding because there were many old testament saints who experienced God's grace, and even gifts of the Holy Spirit, without baptism. Dave's system of belief requires making the kingdom of God as something future and not presently here and entered into now. Then Dave attempts to get around the difficulties brought about by his interpretation by introducing vicarious baptism. I see this as problematic because it causes God to be one who is ritualistic and superstitious himself. I'm sure Dave doesn't think it is important to understand why God would require baptism, but I do. My understanding of God is not one who has some check list of requirements. God is not some bureaucrat following procedure. Dave seems to have this viewpoint that if someone has everything except baptism, God withholds grace from that person until someone can be baptized for him vicariously. That's kind of like how the Pharisee's complained that the disciples didn't wash their hands before eating. Scripture seems very clear that God is not legalistic in this sense, but that the things he requires of us have purpose. It is the effect of what we do that is important. Interestingly, this same perception I have of the need for commandments to have some functional relevance also causes me to reject Judy's understanding of baptism merely being a symbolic ritual of an inward experience that has already happened. I do not believe that God would have any commandments or New Covenant Sacraments that have no functional relevance. To be fair to Dave, I recognize that he sees baptism as a kind of signing of the contract with God. I too recognize a role of baptism in this, but to say that it is necessary is to say that God requires a signature on a contract before he will work with you. I don't see that. If someone commits to God and does everything else expected of the contract, in my opinion, God works with you as if the contract were signed. In Dave's system, it seems that others can sign the contract for you, even if you have not signed a power of attorney for them to do so. So it seems to me that Dave's understanding greatly complicates an otherwise simple situation. DaveH wrote: > I'm sorry you feel that way, Judy.� Your explanation > of vs 5 is not the same as I have heard from DavidM, > who believes "born of water" refers to a vaginal birth.� > (I assume I've got that right, DavidM?)�� Not exactly. I think those who have been born by C-section also have been born of water. :-) Judy wrote: > I don't believe you are interested in the Truth > because you believe yourself to be so far ahead > of most of us. DaveH wrote: > You are right Wow. Judy, you caused Dave to admit something that many others have tried to help him see about himself for a very long time. Good Job! :-) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
