Search results

Our "salvation by the blood of the Lamb" corresponds to the "salvation" "by the blood of the lamb" by which the Jews were "saved" from their slavery in Egypt--yet they fell under God's wrath because though they began by faith they did not continue to walk in faith and so they angered God and...

Please let us discuss that on the appropriate thread.

Jesus's "born of flesh" corresponds to Nicodemus's misunderstanding "Can a man return to his mother's womb and be 'born again' when he is old?" and has nothing to do with John's baptism whatsoever.

Because "justified by faith" seemingly extends into "works of faith".

LOL! I think it's very odd.

Well, that is incorrect according to Romans 14:23, but I'd prefer it we spoke on that in the appropriate thread.

It's @Ferris Bueller's argument, no one else's.

Jesus tells Nicodemus "how to enter God's Kingdom", that it is by being "born again", then corrects Nicodemus's misunderstanding "not flesh birth, going back into your mother's womb, and then exiting again, but spirit birth--to inherit God's spiritual Kingdom you must yourself be spirit". The...

Incorrect. Only the Law was "weakened through sinful flesh", but the good works we do "under Grace" are produced by God--about which we are told "therefore... obey, for it is God at work in you".

Oh, I didn't know you read "born of water" as "born of flesh".

To the contrary, John's baptism said "believe in Him Who is coming".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying "Jesus was water baptized as an act of righteousness--He fulfilled all righteousness for us so that we don't have to" or "Just as Jesus had to do what was right and be water baptized so also we must be water baptized"? I do believe baptism...

LOL What are they then??? Are you saying you have to be born of each member of the Trinity? Three new births--one of the Word, one of the Spirit, one of the Father? LOL The Water is the Word--when you receive the Word of the Spirit you are born of God.

You've misunderstood : you're conflating my assertion that "water and Spirit" refers to "being born of God" together with an assumption you have that I must therefore reject the necessity of water baptism.

We're asking what "born of water and Spirit" means. "Baptism" is only indirectly related because some insist that that's its meaning.

Yep, the Word and the Spirit are two separate "Persons" of "the Trinity", and yet they are bound tightly together, inseparable.

He means "water and Spirit" refers to the same birth--that there is no separate distinct "water birth".

So, the article says "water baptism is not spiritual baptism"? Well, John 3 is talking about a birth, so I would hope he would have something to say about the birth. To say "water baptism and spiritual baptism aren't the same" is directly relevant is to assume this has to do with baptism.

It's so obvious. I don't understand peoples' need to deny. I guess they are just so proud they came up with, invented, an idea, rather than letting the author come up with ideas for us and feed us like baby birds.

This is an error called "begging the question".