On Baptism

[Saint Sinner]

Greek words:

Hydor- water

Baptizo- baptize

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not of any works. Baptism is a work.

As for John 3:5, if Jesus meant baptism then he would have used the word. Reading baptism into this verse is to assert a preconceived idea or theology. Assuming water meaning baptism is unwarranted. Furthermore, baptism as a Christian ordinance was not in effect at the time of the conversation with Nicodemus.

Some will say that the thief on the Cross didn't need baptism because he was under the Old Covenant but insist that John 3:5 is proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a person under the Old Covenant, that he must be baptized? It doesn't make sense.

What does birth by water mean? Natural birth in the womb with amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby.

Born by the Spirit is simply spiritual birth.

Another interpretation is that both are aspects to spiritual birth. Water refers to a spiritual cleansing or renewal. See Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25; John 13:10; 15:3;1 Corinthians 6:11 and Hebrews 10:22 for similar examples.

[JLHPROF]

Mark 16 -

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

From the Greek baptistheis - meaning to dip, immerse

 

- also used in Matthew 3:16 when Christ was baptized by water and Acts 8:13 when Simon the sorcerer was baptized.

 

Christ clearly meant baptism by water to be required for salvation.

Edited November 8, 2015 by JLHPROF

[3DOP]

Greek words:

Hydor- water

Baptizo- baptize

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not of any works. Baptism is a work.

As for John 3:5, if Jesus meant baptism then he would have used the word. Reading baptism into this verse is to assert a preconceived idea or theology. Assuming water meaning baptism is unwarranted. Furthermore, baptism as a Christian ordinance was not in effect at the time of the conversation with Nicodemus.

Some will say that the thief on the Cross didn't need baptism because he was under the Old Covenant but insist that John 3:5 is proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a person under the Old Covenant, that he must be baptized? It doesn't make sense.

What does birth by water mean? Natural birth in the womb with amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby.

Born by the Spirit is simply spiritual birth.

Another interpretation is that both are aspects to spiritual birth. Water refers to a spiritual cleansing or renewal. See Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25; John 13:10; 15:3;1 Corinthians 6:11 and Hebrews 10:22 for similar examples.

Edited November 8, 2015 by 3DOP

[ksfisher]

Jesus showed the importance of baptism by setting the example himself:

13 ¶Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3

[Saint Sinner]

Mark 16 -

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

From the Greek baptistheis - meaning to dip, immerse

 

- also used in Matthew 3:16 when Christ was baptized by water and Acts 8:13 when Simon the sorcerer was baptized.

 

Christ clearly meant baptism by water to be required for salvation.

But what the verse doesn't say is equally important.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that one is not saved without baptism. Many make such a horrible assumption about the text and theology. We are saved because of our belief. We believe and are saved prior to baptism.

[Saint Sinner]

Jesus showed the importance of baptism by setting the example himself:

13 ¶Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3

From Bible Gateway:

Jesus "Fulfills All Righteousness" by Identifying with His People (3:15)

As noted above, on behalf of others Jesus voluntarily accepted a lower status than he deserved. Since "fulfilling righteousness" elsewhere in Matthew may pertain to obeying the principles of the law (5:17, 20; compare, for example, Sib. Or. 3.246), Jesus presumably here expresses his obedience to God's plan revealed in the Scriptures. But Jesus sometimes also fulfilled the prophetic Scriptures by identifying with Israel's history and completing its mission (Mt 2:15, 18). This baptism hence probably represents Jesus' ultimate identification with Israel at the climactic stage in its history: confessing its sins to prepare for the kingdom (3:2, 6).

If this suggestion is correct, then Jesus' baptism, like his impending death (compare Mk 10:38-39 with Mk 14:23-24, 36), is vicarious, embraced on behalf of others with whom the Father has called him to identify (Lampe 1951:39). This text declares the marvelous love of God for an undeserving world-especially for us who by undeserved grace have become his disciples. Jesus' example also calls us to offer ourselves sacrificially for an undeserving world as he offered himself for us. In a world that regards moral boundaries as impractical, where nothing higher than selfish passion guides many lives around us, Jesus reminds us of a higher mission and purpose for our lives. By submitting to baptism by one of lower rank who was nevertheless fulfilling his calling, Jesus also models humility for us.

God Declares His Approval of Jesus (3:16-17)

After Jesus submits humbly to others in God's plan, God publicly acknowledges Jesus' own rank. First, heaven was opened, reflecting biblical language for God's revelation or future deliverance (Is 64:1 [LXX 63:19]; Ezek 1:1; Kingsbury 1983:64; Schweizer 1970:37; compare Joseph and Asenath 14:2/3).

Second, Jesus saw the Spirit descending like a dove and lighting on him. The background for this sign of God's approval may require further comment. Scholars have often suspected that the dove has symbolic value and have proposed a variety of possible backgrounds for it. Jewish use of the dove to symbolize God's Spirit (Abrahams 1917:48-49; Barrett 1966:38) is both rare and late, as is the rabbinic comparison of the brooding Spirit in Genesis 1 with a dove (Taylor 1952:160-61). More frequently the dove represents Israel (as in Ps-Philo 39:5; b. Sabbat 49a; 130a); but while Jesus identifies with Israel in the context (as in Mt 2:11), this passage portrays the Spirit, not Jesus, as a dove. Genesis 8:8-12 probably provides the most suitable background (see also 4 Baruch 7:: here the dove appears as the harbinger of the new world after the flood, which other early Christian literature employs as a prototype of the coming age (Mt 24:38; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 3:6-7). Jesus is the inaugurator of the kingdom era that John has been proclaiming.

Third, God shows his approval of Jesus by a voice from heaven, a concept with which Matthew's Jewish audience was undoubtedly familiar. Many Jewish teachers considered this bat qol the primary source of revelation apart from Scripture exposition while the Spirit of prophecy was quenched. The Gospels show that three voices-Scripture, a prophetic voice in the wilderness and the heavenly voice-all attest Jesus' identity. The heavenly voice alone would have been inadequate, but here it confirms the witness of Scripture and a prophet. Jesus is not a mere prophet but the subject of other prophets' messages.

The fact of the voice is important, but what the voice says is most important, for this is what officially declares Jesus' identity to Matthew's biblically informed implied audience. The voice rehearses ancient biblical language, probably adapting Psalm 2:7 ("You are my Son") into an announcement to the bystanders (This is my Son). Psalm 2, originally an enthronement psalm, is here used to announce in advance Jesus' messianic enthronement. The second proposed biblical allusion here, Isaiah 42:1, is more controversial, despite its many proponents. But whether or not Mark saw Isaiah's servant as background here, Matthew surely did, for he reads the wording of this voice's recognition oracle into his own translation of Isaiah (Mt 12:18). Jesus' mission includes suffering opposition as well as reigning, and so does the mission of his followers (5:11-12; 10:22; 16:24-27; 19:27-29; 24:9-13).

The Father's acclamation of the Son may suggest various principles to Matthew's readers. First, it reveals how central Jesus is to the Father's heart and plan; no one can reject Jesus and simultaneously please the Father. Jesus is not one prophet among many, but God's ultimate revelation; that he is God's "beloved" Son underlines the magnitude of God's sacrifice (compare Jn 3:16). Though in many contemporary circles worship properly exhorts and encourages the people of God (Col 3:16), we also need the kind of worship that tells Jesus how great he is, praising him for what he has done and for who he is (Ps 150:2).

Second, the Father's acclamation reveals that the meek Jesus is also the ultimate ruler who will usher in justice and peace. The beginning of his story tells his persecuted followers the end of the story in advance, providing us firm hope for the future.

Finally, the voice reveals Jesus as the Son obedient to the point of death, who willingly divests himself of his proper honor by identifying with us in baptism and death. We who often trifle with obedience in the smallest matters-for instance, the discipline of our thoughts or words for God's honor-are shamed by our Lord's obedience. May we worship him so intensely that his desires become our own and we, like our Lord, become obedient servants with whom the Father is well pleased.

[JLHPROF]

But what the verse doesn't say is equally important.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that one is not saved without baptism. Many make such a horrible assumption about the text and theology. We are saved because of our belief. We believe and are saved prior to baptism.

 

That reasoning is like the child claiming "well, you didn't say I COULDN'T have ice cream for dinner".

Christ said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

 

What more can you want?  And if Paul said different in Ephesians (which he didn't) then Paul is wrong.

[jwhitlock]

Greek words:

Hydor- water

Baptizo- baptize

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not of any works. Baptism is a work.

As for John 3:5, if Jesus meant baptism then he would have used the word. Reading baptism into this verse is to assert a preconceived idea or theology. Assuming water meaning baptism is unwarranted. Furthermore, baptism as a Christian ordinance was not in effect at the time of the conversation with Nicodemus.

Some will say that the thief on the Cross didn't need baptism because he was under the Old Covenant but insist that John 3:5 is proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a person under the Old Covenant, that he must be baptized? It doesn't make sense.

What does birth by water mean? Natural birth in the womb with amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby.

Born by the Spirit is simply spiritual birth.

Another interpretation is that both are aspects to spiritual birth. Water refers to a spiritual cleansing or renewal. See Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25; John 13:10; 15:3;1 Corinthians 6:11 and Hebrews 10:22 for similar examples.

 

One wonders what John the Baptist was doing, if baptism wasn't a Christian ordinance. Or why Jesus was baptized. Or why John 4:2 tells us that the disciples of Jesus baptized. Or that in John chapter 3, we have Jesus talking about being born of the water and the spirit, and then later on in the chapter, talking about John and baptism.

 

It's a stretch to think that the water reference had nothing to do with baptism, since the context around it talks about baptism.

 

As JLHPROF has mentioned, Mark 16 talks about the necessity of baptism. 1 Cor. 15:29 talks about the necessity of baptism, even for those who have passed on, which is why it can be done by proxy. Acts chapter 8 talks about the necessity of ordinances being done by those who have been ordained and that it cannot be bought.

 

Baptism is a required ordinance, and not a work. In Ephesians, Paul was referring to the works that the Jews performed and believed were saving in and of themselves. Salvation comes through the grace of Christ, and through acceptance of the ordinances such as baptism. The ordinances do not save us; they are the signatures on the covenants we make with Christ who saves us.

 

Being born of the Spirit entails the laying on of hands by those who are authorized to do so, again as Acts 8 demonstrates. Pretensions of using priesthood power by unauthorized persons doesn't count as Acts 19 demonstrates. The day of Pentecost and the teachings of Jesus in John 15-16 tell us that receipt of the Spirit by the laying on of hands is far more than just spiritual rebirth; it is an ordinance necessary to salvation. 

 

The Jews and Nicodemus were familiar with baptism and Jesus expresses surprise in John 3:10 that Nicodemus is not familiar with them. 

 

Water is used as an analogy for cleansing in many ways and so is baptism. Cleansing from what? Sin as Acts 22:16 tells us. Removing sin from us is an act of salvation, and baptism is necessary in order to enable the remission of sins in people.

[Saint Sinner]

That reasoning is like the child claiming "well, you didn't say I COULDN'T have ice cream for dinner".

Christ said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

 

What more can you want?  And if Paul said different in Ephesians (which he didn't) then Paul is wrong.

That is a terribly inaccurate analogy and completely misrepresents my argument.

[Saint Sinner]

One wonders what John the Baptist was doing, if baptism wasn't a Christian ordinance. Or why Jesus was baptized. Or why John 4:2 tells us that the disciples of Jesus baptized. Or that in John chapter 3, we have Jesus talking about being born of the water and the spirit, and then later on in the chapter, talking about John and baptism.

 

It's a stretch to think that the water reference had nothing to do with baptism, since the context around it talks about baptism.

 

As JLHPROF has mentioned, Mark 16 talks about the necessity of baptism. 1 Cor. 15:29 talks about the necessity of baptism, even for those who have passed on, which is why it can be done by proxy. Acts chapter 8 talks about the necessity of ordinances being done by those who have been ordained and that it cannot be bought.

 

Baptism is a required ordinance, and not a work. In Ephesians, Paul was referring to the works that the Jews performed and believed were saving in and of themselves. Salvation comes through the grace of Christ, and through acceptance of the ordinances such as baptism. The ordinances do not save us; they are the signatures on the covenants we make with Christ who saves us.

 

Being born of the Spirit entails the laying on of hands by those who are authorized to do so, again as Acts 8 demonstrates. Pretensions of using priesthood power by unauthorized persons doesn't count as Acts 19 demonstrates. The day of Pentecost and the teachings of Jesus in John 15-16 tell us that receipt of the Spirit by the laying on of hands is far more than just spiritual rebirth; it is an ordinance necessary to salvation. 

 

The Jews and Nicodemus were familiar with baptism and Jesus expresses surprise in John 3:10 that Nicodemus is not familiar with them. 

 

Water is used as an analogy for cleansing in many ways and so is baptism. Cleansing from what? Sin as Acts 22:16 tells us. Removing sin from us is an act of salvation, and baptism is necessary in order to enable the remission of sins in people.

See post #6.

[JLHPROF]

See post #6.

 

Ok, you've made your argument against.

Several of us have made our argument for.

 

Nobody has convinced anyone of the opposing view.

Does that mean we're done?

[jwhitlock]

See post #6.

 

The only thing post #6 tried to do was to diminish the necessity of baptism. Unfortunately, the New Testament is rather clear that baptism is a necessity, and not just an optional outward sign of commitment.

 

I don't think the article you quoted in #6 did a particularly good job of rationalizing why baptism is unnecessary; it rather sounded like it was trying to support a preconceived theology than understanding what the scriptures really mean. That preconceived theology tends to be an outgrowth of dealing with the need for authority in performing the ordinances of salvation, which is also clear in the NT. If you can't prove that you have authority, then theology evolves to tell us that authority isn't necessary or that the ordinances aren't really necessary.

[carbon dioxide]

Some will say that the thief on the Cross didn't need baptism because he was under the Old Covenant but insist that John 3:5 is proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a person under the Old Covenant, that he must be baptized? It doesn't make sense.

I am sort of inclined to believe that the thief may have been baptized.  His words are puzzling.  How would he know Jesus was innocent if Jesus was just some stranger to him and seeing him for the first time.  His words indicate that he knew who Jesus was and enough experience with Jesus to make that declaration.  Perhaps he was baptized but then made some mistakes in his life.  I don't know for sure but I am pretty confident that there is more to the story than what is written.

[Saint Sinner]

As for 1 Corinthians 15:29:

Correct punctuation is as follows:

what shall they who are baptised for the dead do? If the dead be not raised at all, why are they then baptised for the dead?

The improper joins the clause "if the dead rise not" with the proceeding instead of with the following part of the verse. The word translated as "rise" is actually "are raised". This is clearly an ad hominem argument. Paul asks how they'll explain there actions. Baptism for the dead existed, also, among Marcion heretics.

From St John Chrysostom: "After a catechism was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the 'living for the dead.'"

Paul does not condone the superstitious practice. Paul separates himself and the Corinthians from those who adopted the custom. He no longer uses the first or second person but "they". It is likely the custom arised from Jewish converts who practiced something similar. For example, if a Jew died without purification from some ceremonial uncleanness, a living person had the ablution performed on them and therefore the dead was considered clean.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Saint Sinner

[carbon dioxide]

What does birth by water mean? Natural birth in the womb with amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby.

 

Some people think that water there means natural birth by amniotic fluid.  I personally think that is ridiculous.  Jesus says that as being conditional.  "UNLESS" one is born by water but since everyone is born that way,  why make that a condition when every person that has ever lived has gone through that?   The natural birth process is something one does to enter this world but no reason to believe it is needed to inherit heaven.  Otherwise why not add, "breath air, or eat a meal, ect."

[Saint Sinner]

The only thing post #6 tried to do was to diminish the necessity of baptism. Unfortunately, the New Testament is rather clear that baptism is a necessity, and not just an optional outward sign of commitment.

 

I don't think the article you quoted in #6 did a particularly good job of rationalizing why baptism is unnecessary; it rather sounded like it was trying to support a preconceived theology than understanding what the scriptures really mean. That preconceived theology tends to be an outgrowth of dealing with the need for authority in performing the ordinances of salvation, which is also clear in the NT. If you can't prove that you have authority, then theology evolves to tell us that authority isn't necessary or that the ordinances aren't really necessary.

The central message pertains to Jesus and his fulfillment of prophecy and less about baptism as a requirement.

[carbon dioxide]

Paul does not condone the superstitious practice. Paul separates himself and the Corinthians from those who adopted the custom. He no longer uses the first or second person but "they". It is likely the custom arised from Jewish converts who practiced something similar. For example, if a Jew died without purification from some ceremonial uncleanness, a living person had the ablution performed on them and therefore the dead was considered clean.

Actually there is no "they" in the Greek and he associates himself with them in verse 30.

[Saint Sinner]

Actually there is no "they" in the Greek and he associates himself with them in verse 30.

In the Greek he does not associate with "them".

[Saint Sinner]

Some people think that water there means natural birth by amniotic fluid.  I personally think that is ridiculous.  Jesus says that as being conditional.  "UNLESS" one is born by water but since everyone is born that way,  why make that a condition when every person that has ever lived has gone through that?   The natural birth process is something one does to enter this world but no reason to believe it is needed to inherit heaven.  Otherwise why not add, "breath air, or eat a meal, ect."

But this still does not negate the fact that hydor does not act as a substitute for baptizo in the Greek and should not be misinterpreted as such in the English.

[Stargazer]

Greek words:

Hydor- water

Baptizo- baptize

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not of any works. Baptism is a work.

As for John 3:5, if Jesus meant baptism then he would have used the word. Reading baptism into this verse is to assert a preconceived idea or theology. Assuming water meaning baptism is unwarranted. Furthermore, baptism as a Christian ordinance was not in effect at the time of the conversation with Nicodemus.

Some will say that the thief on the Cross didn't need baptism because he was under the Old Covenant but insist that John 3:5 is proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a person under the Old Covenant, that he must be baptized? It doesn't make sense.

What does birth by water mean? Natural birth in the womb with amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby.

Born by the Spirit is simply spiritual birth.

Another interpretation is that both are aspects to spiritual birth. Water refers to a spiritual cleansing or renewal. See Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25; John 13:10; 15:3;1 Corinthians 6:11 and Hebrews 10:22 for similar examples.

 

Oh fer cryin' out loud.  For that matter, FAITH is a work.  Give me a break.  And how can you repent and it not be a work?  On the day of Pentecost those who were pricked in the heart by Peter's preaching asked "What shall we do?" And Peter said, repent and get baptized.  No, of course works aren't required.  Sheesh.  I guess Peter was free-associating hogwash, right?

 

When Paul speaks of works, he is speaking of the works of the law, meaning the Law of Moses.  Obedience to the Law of Moses does not save anyone, but the Grace of Jesus Christ does.  And what if a pre-Atonement Israelite refused to keep the Law of Moses, and ate pork and every unclean thing, worked assiduously on the Sabbath, and all the rest, do you think that Grace would save him because he ignored the Law?  Of course not, but a faithful pre-Atonement Israelite who kept the Law of Moses would have been fully justified and would have been a subject of Salvation.

 

Are you the same guy who liked to claim that good works were "filthy" because only Grace is clean?  Nah, I guess not, but you might as well be.

 

And someday, when we get to watch the video of the deliberations at the Council of Nicea, we'll find the discussions as filled with faulty logic and man-pleasing divinations as you've been perpetrating here.

 

Baptizo vs hydor.  What rubbish.  βάπτισμα is immersion.  And in what, pray tell?  Olive oil?  Crude oil?  The philosophies of men?  No, it's immersion in water, and it's literal immersion in water, and nothing else.  Nicodemus finally understood that when Jesus told him baptism was required, he meant baptism was required.  

Edited November 8, 2015 by Stargazer

[jwhitlock]

As for 1 Corinthians 15:29:

Correct punctuation is as follows:

The improper joins the clause "if the dead rise not" with the proceeding instead of with the following part of the verse. The word translated as "rise" is actually "are raised". This is clearly an ad hominem argument. Paul asks how they'll explain there actions. Baptism for the dead existed, also, among Marcion heretics.

From St John Chrysostom: "After a catechism was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the 'living for the dead.'"

Paul does not condone the superstitious practice. Paul separates himself and the Corinthians from those who adopted the custom. He no longer uses the first or second person but "they". It is likely the custom arised from Jewish converts who practiced something similar. For example, if a Jew died without purification from some ceremonial uncleanness, a living person had the ablution performed on them and therefore the dead was considered clean.

 

Nice try.

 

Actually, not even a nice try at re-interpreting this scripture. It's been problematic for mainstream Christian theology to the point that we get embarrassing rationalizations like this to explain it away.

 

The fact is, Paul uses baptism for the dead by proxy to support the resurrection. It's as simple as that. We don't need to throw away the English translation and say we can't understand it unless we go back to the Greek and rework the punctuation to fit a pre-conceived theology - which, by the way, is exactly what hermeneutics is really all about.

[jwhitlock]

The central message pertains to Jesus and his fulfillment of prophecy and less about baptism as a requirement.

 

That's your interpretation.

 

Personally, if I see a chapter like John 3 that talks about the necessity of being born of the water and the spirit, and then a talks later on about baptism in some detail, I sit up and take notice about why the connection is there.

[jwhitlock]

Oh fer cryin' out loud.  For that matter, FAITH is a work.  Give me a break.  And how can you repent and it not be a work?  On the day of Pentecost those who were pricked in the heart by Peter's preaching asked "What shall we do?" And Peter said, repent and get baptized.  No, of course works aren't required.  Sheesh.  I guess Peter was free-associating hogwash, right?

 

When Paul speaks of works, he is speaking of the works of the law, meaning the Law of Moses.  Obedience to the Law of Moses does not save anyone, but the Grace of Jesus Christ does.  And what if a pre-Atonement Israelite refused to keep the Law of Moses, and ate pork and every unclean thing, worked assiduously on the Sabbath, and all the rest, do you think that Grace would save him because he ignored the Law?  Of course not, but a faithful pre-Atonement Israelite who kept the Law of Moses would have been fully justified and would have been a subject of Salvation.

 

Are you the same guy who liked to claim that good works were "filthy" because only Grace is clean?  Nah, I guess not, but you might as well be.

 

And someday, when we get to watch the video of the deliberations at the Council of Nicea, we'll find the discussions as filled with faulty logic and man-pleasing divinations as you've been perpetrating here.

 

Baptizo vs hydor.  What rubbish.  βάπτισμα is immersion.  And in what, pray tell?  Olive oil?  Crude oil?  The philosophies of men?  No, it's immersion in water, and it's literal immersion in water, and nothing else.  Nicodemus finally understood that when Jesus told him baptism was required, he meant baptism was required.  

 

Very well phrased!