Search results

I would like to discuss Baptismal Regeneration here.

@Illuminator I haven't heard the arguments for and against "regenerative water baptism", but that idea appears frequently in Scripture, though it has a conspicuous exception/aberration in Acts 10. Maybe you can open a thread and link me to it so we can discuss that (though I'd prefer not to...

I read the article (I skipped the last part though--got sick of reading the sloppy material) and I still don't understand where you're coming from. What is this article supposed to indicate the word "water" (in John 3's "water and Spirit") means?

...not relevant : the point was the same principle applied in other cases not just the one. So, you agree "water" refers to "the Word of God", you just deny it's an exclusive definition (you think it also refers to water baptism). Interesting. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT "PROTESTANTISM VS CATHOLICISM".

I don't take John 3 "water and Spirit" as referring to "baptism", so this is not even relevant.

Weren't you the one who just argued "it's not one or the other it's both"? You said "recent man made tradition"--obviously a "Catholicism is right" statement. Everything you say has that slant to it. Leave that out of it. Just argue your position without raising that issue. That's not the topic.

I guess he's thinking, "The 'water' in 'water and Spirit' refers to 'baptism', so if anyone denies 'water' refers to 'literal water', they're saying 'baptism' can happen 'waterlessly'." LOL

He's not even in this conversation, he's stuck in "Protestantism versus Catholicism" mode.

Are you saying you agree the word "water" (in "water and Spirit") refers to "the Word"?

Please do not refer to "Protestantism" or "Catholicism", just present your argument for how to define "water" in the passage from texts everyone can agree upon. Stop trying to commandeer the thread.

No, because the discussion is just on John 3--the meaning of the word "water" there--not "waterless baptism", which is a "Protestantism versus Catholicism" issue.

I shared it in the initial reply which you responded to.

It's hard when we have these people literally on Rome's payroll (eg, BOL, possibly also Illuminator) here leading the conversation in that direction.

@Enoch111 Let's try and not get into "Protestantism vs Catholicism" please.

@Illuminator Yes, my only point is that sprinkling of the waters of the ashes of the red heifer is distinct from water baptism.

@Enoch111 @Illuminator Baptism was a separate and distinct rite in the Law.

Also @Enoch111 Ezekiel doesn't refer to baptism. The sprinkling there sounds like the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer which cleansed the defilement of death which was required for a priest to reenter the Temple complex.

It's a stipulation in the Law though.

I didn't realize you were discussing with that user, all I saw was a link to "Catholicism versus Protestantism" material.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Deuteronomy 4:30 "return" = "repent" ("repent" was the Hebrew "shuv" or "teshuva" which meant to "return" or "turn away from and back to") .