Posted on 02/08/2010 11:24:17 AM PST by GonzoII
Driving in my car the other day, I turned on the radio and came across one of the local Protestant stations. A preacher was expounding on John 3:5 where Jesus says, “Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
In his exegesis, he was absolutely sure that John did not mean physical water. Instead, he proposed that John’s water referred to the “word of God.” He cited Ephesians 5:26 and claimed that because Paul referred to “washing her with water by the word,” water was a symbol for Scripture. He transferred this meaning back to John 3:5 and concluded: unless one is born of the word of God (hearing and believing the Bible) and the Spirit (being “born again” by accepting Jesus in your heart) he cannot enter the kingdom of God. So, forget baptism with water as a necessity for salvation.
But how can this radio Bible preacher be so sure that his exegesis and interpretation is the true one, that it should be trusted by his radio audience? What about the other interpretations given by both Protestant and Catholic scholars to this passage? The Catholic Church, along with many Protestant Churches, have taught constantly since the Early Church Fathers that the water of John 3:5 refers to water baptism, which is not a symbol but the very means to receive the grace of God to cleanse one from Original Sin.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicintl.com ...
Symbolism? Buried in sin raised in grace? Or, the outward show to the people of the inner acceptance of God? Just sayingg ....
Maybe I’m missing something on the water baptism question. If someone accepts Christ and DOESN’T get baptized, is that person saved? What happens if say the baptism is scheduled for 5:00 pm and the person gets hit by a pie truck on the way, is he still lost? Isn’t water baptism the outward symbol of salvation and not the actual agency? Any thoughts?
D_I
How can any preacher be sure that their exegesis and interpretation is the true one?
In the situation you describe, one trusts in God's mercy. We are bound to baptize by God's command. God is free to act as He sees fit.
I'm quite sure the answer to this question would be, faith. Or the elimination of reason. :-)
39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Looking for a baptism here, but I don't see it.
So it really isn’t necessary.
Was the thief not saved?
The thief on the cross believed ....
We are commanded to do it. It changes our souls.
You are free to decide if that means it’s “necessary.”
There are several Christian denominations that believe that if you’re not baptized you haven’t been ‘saved’ ... my response is the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized ... then too, if baptism is a means of salvation then why do we need Jesus???
That’s what I thought. I guess when there is more than one faith, we really can’t be sure. Seems then, that any faith could be the true one.
Agreed. I think there are exceptions, but for the most part, we need to be baptized in water.
I see it...It is called baptism of desire. Along with baptism of blood it is an extraordinary means of receiving the First Sacrament of Initiation.
I guess you didn't read the article.
My point. See my post #8
Is this another Catholic tradition?
Yeah, but I still asked the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.