Evangelical with a question

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Tobeloved]

Goodnight all.

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am a moderator...  I could kick you out (if I wanted to violate how we do things).

This is a thread about you and your questions anyone can  join it...

And I am not sure if you will believe me but I am trying to point out the issue you are having so you can fix them... and continue to have enjoyable conversation with a whole lot of people on this site.

I don't have a problem with who joins or posts.

I will say this only one more time.  That's it.

My issue is with all the issues I had being a first time poster, web site issues all day, logging me out, refresh, my not knowing how to use quote and reply and trying to keep up with the thread.  I think that it is very rude and not Christ-like to give me a chance and not take EVERY word in the most negative way possible.  Most sites, give someone a chance at least.

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

l the issues I had being a first time poster, web site issues all day, logging me out,

It has nothing to do with your being a first-rime poster. It's been happening to many of us, especially on this topic. that's why you'll see so many "dups" and "trips".

Lehi

 

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

My issue is with all the issues I had being a first time poster, web site issues all day, logging me out, refresh, my not knowing how to use quote and reply and trying to keep up with the thread.  I think that it is very rude and not Christ-like to give me a chance and not take EVERY word in the most negative way possible.  Most sites, give someone a chance at least.

Again it would be nice if you listened...

Last time you talked about login issues and duplicate post and quoting issue...  You were told quiet plainly that everyone what having exact same issues.  It has nothing to do with you being a new member it has nothing to do with you being non LDS.  It has everything to do with this sites technical issues which effect everyone.

Now you can continue to do unto other exactly what you claim is being done to you.  Or you can go to bed, take a break and try again in the morning.  Chances are the glitches will still be here and so will everyone else

 

 

[LeSellers]

27 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I've never heard of that guy.

That may or may not be important. There are many people I've never heard of, but who share my views of things in general, so I at least give them a hearing. He's Evangelical, and he has done a great deal of historical research on the topic.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, zil said:

Not to cut anyone else short, but why do we need more than the Savior's own words in John 3:5 - clearly baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is needed.

To be fair, the context of John 3:5 is a little ambiguous--the "born of water" mentioned in verse 5 could be a response to Nicodemus' referring to physical birth in the previous verse.  Under this reading, Jesus is saying "unless you are born not only in body, but also in spirit, you cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

[LeSellers]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To be fair, the context of John 3:5 is a little ambiguous--the "born of water" mentioned in verse 5 could be a response to Nicodemus' referring to physical birth in the previous verse.  Under this reading, Jesus is saying "unless you are born not only in body, but also in spirit, you cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

Here's a different take on it:

Quote

In John 3:5, the Greek is "ex" water and spirit. "Ex" means "from," in the sense of either "away" or "source." Here the source-sense is in view. (Jack Cotrell , Baptism: A Biblical Study (1989) at 38.) The conjunction of "water and spirit" with a single verb signify they "together form a single means of that regeneration which is a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom of God...." (Id.)

However, there are many modern authorities who argue, based on John 3:6, that Jesus meant by water being born of the flesh, i.e., natural birth. The next verse reads:

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Hence, this contention claims a paralellism between "born of water" in 3:5 which supposedly parallels "birth to the flesh" in 3:6, just as "born of...the Spirit" in 3:5 parallels "birth to the spirit" in 3:6. But this conclusion relies upon assuming water in 3:5 equates to birth in the flesh in 3:6. There might not be a parallelism at all; verse 5 could mean that the new birth is by water and the spirit, and verse 6 could simply mean flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit to spirit. There may be no clear parallelism except by a presupposition that links "water" to "flesh."

Others claim that "water and spirit" mean simply the spirit. Calvin wrote: "By 'water and Spirit,' therefore I simply understand the Spirit, which is water." (Calvin, Institutes 4.16.25 - Vol. 3 at 404.)

But this is silly, as it simply erases the word "water" without any justification. Jesus said the new birth was by "water," as distinct from the "spirit," as well as by the "spirit." Calvin simply affirms how he wishes the passage read, and does not give any rationale to erase the fact that two (not one) operative factors are involved: water and spirit.

Sir William Smith (1813-1893) in A Dictionary of the Bible (1893) at I: 347 correctly responds to the view that "water" meant "spirit" as Calvin claimed:

This not only contradicts the unanimous opinion of the Church, but does violence to the language of Holy Scripture. No one intending to convey the idea that the " water" was figurative would mention it before "the Spirit," and connect the two as parallel elements of birth. The being "born of water and the Spirit" is plainly one operation, wrought by two distinct, yet inseparable, means.

It seems logical to accept this position to me. But then I have a certain bias. Cotrell doesn't share it, but he arrives at a similar conclusion.

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Jane_Doe]

@LeSellers & @Tobeloved

Jack Cottrell, whom Lehi quoted is an Evangelical theologian: professor at Cincinnati Christian University, and author of many Christian books.  His wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cottrell

 

[zil]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To be fair, the context of John 3:5 is a little ambiguous--the "born of water" mentioned in verse 5 could be a response to Nicodemus' referring to physical birth in the previous verse.  Under this reading, Jesus is saying "unless you are born not only in body, but also in spirit, you cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

I recently spent two weeks visiting family.  During that visit, my dad said something along the lines of: "Sometimes, it seems like the Lord went out of his way to make it easy for people to choose not to believe the truth."

[Tobeloved]

Lehi, let's look at it

Titus 3:5

4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

It is the regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, it is not a physical baptism with water.

[Tobeloved]

10 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Here's a different take on it:

It seems logical to accept this position to me. But then I have a certain bias. Cotrell doesn't share it, but he arrives at a similar conclusion.

Lehi

Why are you throwing Calvinism and so much other information into our conversation?  That is what people are getting upset about, that it doesn't stay on topic.  I've never heard of these people and I surely do not get my theology from them.  So if we can keep it to the Bible, that would be best.

[Tobeloved]

2 hours ago, zil said:

I recently spent two weeks visiting family.  During that visit, my dad said something along the lines of: "Sometimes, it seems like the Lord went out of his way to make it easy for people to choose not to believe the truth."

That could really send us down a rocky road because it is opinion.  I don't think we should do that because that could get ugly very quick.

I really do not want opinion because then it opens the conversation up to anything.

Can we stick to the Bible?

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[LeSellers]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

Why are you throwing Calvinism and so much other information into our conversation?  That is what people are getting upset about, that it doesn't stay on topic.  I've never heard of these people and I surely do not get my theology from them.  So if we can keep it to the Bible, that would be best.

I wasn't talking to you, specifically.

Cotrell references the Bible over and over. I reference the Bible over and over.

There is nothing in the Bible that says the Church of Jesus Christ is not necessary to salvation. There is nothing in the Bible that says that baptism is not salvific. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead us to reject prophets and the organization Christ established.

You have quoted a part of Paul's writing that you see as making these points, but the context (that is, who was Paul's audience?) makes your interpretations erroneous.

There is a Latter-day Saint scripture that describes our predicament: "the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Tobeloved]

10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Again it would be nice if you listened...

Last time you talked about login issues and duplicate post and quoting issue...  You were told quiet plainly that everyone what having exact same issues.  It has nothing to do with you being a new member it has nothing to do with you being non LDS.  It has everything to do with this sites technical issues which effect everyone.

Now you can continue to do unto other exactly what you claim is being done to you.  Or you can go to bed, take a break and try again in the morning.  Chances are the glitches will still be here and so will everyone else

 

 

I'm just saying that it was part of the entire situation.  One of the things, that then the total of is my experience.  So it was a lot of issues together. Not just one thing and as a FIRST TIME here person, how was I to know.  It was later explained, but with all the 'you are so rude not answering my question, you don't want to .....".  It was part of the whole.

 

Does that make sense?

It's like you are trying to tell me I have no reason to feel like I felt.  What kind of words were people using with me?  Maybe go back and read those and get an idea from my perspective.  That is the fair thing to do.

[Tobeloved]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To be fair, the context of John 3:5 is a little ambiguous--the "born of water" mentioned in verse 5 could be a response to Nicodemus' referring to physical birth in the previous verse.  Under this reading, Jesus is saying "unless you are born not only in body, but also in spirit, you cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

Now this is a great verse.  Because when we are saved by Jesus Christ He sends us His indwelling Holy Spirit, forever.  It is our seal of the New Covenant, God's promise to us (not our promise, but God's) UNTIL the Day of Redemption (which is after death).  The Holy Spirit indwelling a believer is part of (our down payment) of our inheritance in Christ that we are His heirs as well as co-heirs of the Father.

If you go back to the text I wrote (earlier) in Romans 5 and 6 you will see the Holy Spirit as part of our  salvation.

[estradling75]

13 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I'm just saying that it was part of the entire situation.  One of the things, that then the total of is my experience.  So it was a lot of issues together. Not just one thing and as a FIRST TIME here person, how was I to know.  It was later explained, but with all the 'you are so rude not answering my question, you don't want to .....".  It was part of the whole.

 

Does that make sense?

It's like you are trying to tell me I have no reason to feel like I felt.  What kind of words were people using with me?  Maybe go back and read those and get an idea from my perspective.  That is the fair thing to do.

Fair enough...  But at the same time you have been asked to go back and think about how you are coming across from our perspective...  That is also the fair thing to do.  It is really unfair to ask to be treated one way and not do it yourself

[LeSellers]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

Now this is a great verse.  Because when we are saved by Jesus Christ He sends us His indwelling Holy Spirit, forever.  It is our seal of the New Covenant, God's promise to us (not our promise, but God's) UNTIL the Day of Redemption (which is after death).  The Holy Spirit indwelling a believer is part of (our down payment) of our inheritance in Christ that we are His heirs as well as co-heirs of the Father.

If you go back to the text I wrote (earlier) in Romans 5 and 6 you will see the Holy Spirit as part of our  salvation.

that's what we believe (although we don't use that language). But it does not address the necessity of baptism.

Lehi

[Tobeloved]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Fair enough...  But at the same time you have been asked to go back and think about how you are coming across from our perspective...  That is also the fair thing to do.  It is really unfair to ask to be treated one way and not do it yourself

And I am trying.  I am also trying to not to let the thread go off to other topics.  So let's just leave that all in the past and move forward as of right now, ok?

[Tobeloved]

18 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

that's what we believe (although we don't use that language). But it does not address the necessity of baptism.

Lehi

It was a reply to a post that was discussing baptism, though.  John 3:5 which another poster referenced.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[Tobeloved]

11 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Sorry, but it is about water baptism.

Here's how the Orthodox Jewish Bible renders it:

"mikveh mayim ruchani" means "ritual bath waters of (birth, I think)" — Ruach HaKodesh is the Holy Spirit: separate things. I could post a myraid of other translations, but the most important one is Young's Literal:

All of those that stick close to the original Greek (and there are many that take unwarranted liberties) talk about washing, bathing, etc., and distinguish between water and spirit.

Lehi

Ritual baths were always part of Jewish life in the Old Testament.  That is very different from one act, being a baptism.

 

I would like to stick with the original KJV.  Going all around with all these Bibles will really confuse you.  Most Christians have two versions, like NASB and KJV, or NIV and ESV

There are only about 6 translations that are highly used.  I use the NASB and KJV, besides the original Bible languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

And I am trying.  I am also trying to not to let the thread go off to other topics.  So let's just leave that all in the past and move forward as of right now, ok?

Thread derailment is a common occurrence... But fair enough.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I would like to stick with the original KJV.  Going all around with all these Bibles will really confuse you.  Most Christians have two versions, like NASB and KJV, or NIV and ESV

There are only about 6 translations that are highly used.  I use the NASB and KJV, besides the original Bible languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Back on the subject then...  For about 2 thousand years Christians have been trying to come to agreement on what the Gospel really is using the only the Bible (no matter what translation) and have clearly failed to come to any kind of agreement(see all the different Christian churches).  The idea that we here on the forums as different groups might do what Christaindom has failed to do for thousands of years seems a rather vain hope.  The best we can hope for is to agree to disagree about how we interpret the passages.