Shared altar / pulpit

[BJ Bear]

No, it doesn't.

Read it carefully. It's the Word that washes. The water is only an analogy.

The careful reader will note that the water is not an analogy because it is the bath or washing of water with the word or utterance.

That's why we have verses like:

You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. - John 15:3

According to the context that is a different kind of clean, they are pruned in order that they may bear more fruit. Here is that passage in the Green's Literal Translation, "Every branch in Me not bearing fruit, He takes it away; and each one bearing fruit, He prunes, so that it may bear more fruit. You are already pruned because of the Word which I have spoken to you." John 15:2-3 -LITV

Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth - .John 17:18

It is this word which testifies that He sanctifies and cleanses by the bath or washing of water with the word or utterance. Listen to the truth of His word

 

[Mike McK]

The careful reader will note that the water is not an analogy because it is the bath or washing of water with the word or utterance.

According to the context that is a different kind of clean, they are pruned in order that they may bear more fruit. Here is that passage in the Green's Literal Translation, "Every branch in Me not bearing fruit, He takes it away; and each one bearing fruit, He prunes, so that it may bear more fruit. You are already pruned because of the Word which I have spoken to you." John 15:2-3 -LITV

It is this word which testifies that He sanctifies and cleanses by the bath or washing of water with the word or utterance. Listen to the truth of His word

OK. I've shown you what the Bible says. I've shown you what the original text says. I've shown you what the grammar says. I've given you corroborating verses.

If you believe you're saved by your works, then there's nothing more I can do for you.

 

[Mike McK]

Incidentally, not that you'll listen, but here's Hoehner's take on it:


"Many think this refers to baptism. Unfortunately, this is reading patristic and modern liturgy into the first century, and moreover, there is nothing in the present context or in Titus 3:5 to indicate that this has reference to a baptismal rite. Furthermore, the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin. Even in the Qumran community the ritual washing was not considered as that which cleansed them. Rather, it was God who wiped out their transgressions and justified them. Also, as Erdmann rightly observes, nowhere in the NT is the rite of baptism used in connection with the entire Christian community but only in connection with individual believers. On the other hand, Barth and Dunn think it is a reference to the baptism of the Spirit. Once again, nothing in the present context suggests the Spirit's baptism.

It is probably best to see it as a metaphorical expression of redemption with the imagery of the bridal bath practiced in the first century. Christ gave himself for the community of believers, the church. The purpose of this was to set apart the church because she had been cleaned with the washing of water. In 1 Corinthians 6:11 it also mentions washing. There, unlike those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, believers were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God. Here, too, the washing has reference to the cleansing accomplished by Christ and not the ritual of baptism. In Titus 3:5 it refers to the washing of regeneration, indicating a cleansing that comes with salvation making us acceptable before a Holy God. Why is the term "water" used? The most likely explanation is that water is the most common element used for washing. Along with the above mentioned, Hebrews 10:22 refers to the new covenant that promises forgiveness of sin as fulfilled by Jesus' death allowing those who trust in that death to come to God because their hearts were sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water. Again, these are picturesque ways of expressing the cleansing affected by Christ's death. None of these passages have any suggestion of a sacramental setting. Nothing appears to be part of a formula associated with baptism such as "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, the idea of washing involves bathing rather than just a few drops of water or a quick dip into the water. In addition, baptism is always administered individually whereas this context speaks of the effect of Christ's death on the body of believers. As initially stated then, the washing of water is a metaphorical way to express cleansing.

As mentioned above, not only is this a metaphorical expression of redemption, but it also evokes the imagery of the bridal bath. This is significant since the present passage deals with the relationship of the husband to his wife. The prenuptial bath in Jewish marital customs reflected the imagery of God's marriage to Israel related in Ezekiel 16. At the time of her birth, Israel was in a pitiable state, lying in blood, uncleansed by the washing of water, and was abhorred by all (16:4-6). When she grew up God entered into a covenant with her and bathed her with water, washed off the blood, anointed her with oil, and clothed her with the finest materials, making her exceedingly beautiful, fit to be a queen (16:8-14). The custom of prenuptial bathing seemed to be practiced also among the Greeks. Analogous to this bridal bath, the present verse relates that Christ's death on behalf of the church was to cleanse her by the "washing of the water."

(Harold W. Hoehner, "Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary", pp. 753-754)

 

[Mike McK]

The reference here seems to be to the baptismal bath (immersion) of water, “in the bath of water.” See note on 1Cor.6:11 for the bringing together of apelousasthe and hēgiasthēte. Neither there nor here does Paul mean that the cleansing or sanctification took place in the bath save in a symbolic fashion as in Rom.6:4-6. Some think that Paul has also a reference to the bath of the bride before marriage. Still more difficult is the phrase “with the word” (en rēmati). In Jn.17:17 Jesus connected “truth” with “sanctify.” That is possible here, though it may also be connected with katharisas (having cleansed). Some take it to mean the baptismal formula.

(A.T. Robrtson, "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/​

 

[BJ Bear]

Nothing in the text suggests this.

It does to all who understand the word baptism and who understand Christian baptism. Baptism is the application of water. Those who insist it only means immersion are telling stories without Scriptural merit.

Christian baptism is baptism into Christ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In other Apostolic words, the bath or washing of water with the word or utterance.

He didn't spell it out. He never once says nor suggests that it's baptism.

It is spelled out to all whose minds have been opened by the Lord to understand Scripture.

The grammar of the verse, which I have already posted for you, indicates that the remission of sins has already taken place and that baptism is a response to the remission of sins.

I passed over the dubious comments in your previous post regarding the grammar. Cite your source because it has led you to a misunderstanding of Acts 2:38-39.

OK. Well, since you can't be honest and post the whole thing, i guess I'll have to. Here, let the grown up do your work for you:


For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Again, posting the entire chapter, the whole epistle, or all of Scripture will not change the acting substantive, baptism, the verb, save, or the passive object, you, or that it saves through the resurrection of Christ. Baptism remains the work of God as 1 Pter 3:21-22 and Ephesian 5:25-27 clearly indicate.

 

[Mike McK]

Again, posting the entire chapter, the whole epistle, or all of Scripture will not change the acting substantive, baptism, the verb, save, or the passive object, you, or that it saves through the resurrection of Christ. Baptism remains the work of God as 1 Pter 3:21-22 and Ephesian 5:25-27 clearly indicate.

Actually, posting passages in their proper context, and not just snippets of verses changes the meaning considerably.

But then, you knew this and this is why you dishonestly chose to post only a small snippet that left out the context.

Good luck with your salvation by works false gospel.

 

[BJ Bear]

Incidentally, not that you'll listen, but here's Hoehner's take on it:


"Many think this refers to baptism. Unfortunately, this is reading patristic and modern liturgy into the first century, and moreover, there is nothing in the present context or in Titus 3:5 to indicate that this has reference to a baptismal rite.

That is a categorically false assertion since the first century command is to disciple (the transitive verb) all nations, baptizing and teaching (the participles informing us what is meant by the transitive verb disciple).

Furthermore, the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin.

According Ephesians 5 Christ cleanses us with the bath or washing of water with the word (NKJV terminology).

Even in the Qumran community the ritual washing was not considered as that which cleansed them. Rather, it was God who wiped out their transgressions and justified them.

Qumram is irrelevant since it was not a post resurrection Christian community.

Also, as Erdmann rightly observes, nowhere in the NT is the rite of baptism used in connection with the entire Christian community but only in connection with individual believers.

According to Eph. 5, Christ is the Savior of the body, the church. The body of Christ or the church consists of individual believers.

On the other hand, Barth and Dunn think it is a reference to the baptism of the Spirit. Once again, nothing in the present context suggests the Spirit's baptism.

Irrelevant.

It is probably best to see it as a metaphorical expression of redemption with the imagery of the bridal bath practiced in the first century.

Hedging his bet doesn't change the categorical error that serves as his base assumption. See above.

Christ gave himself for the community of believers, the church.

Christ gave himself for all men, but the context of Eph. 5 is the church.

The purpose of this was to set apart the church because she had been cleaned with the washing of water.

It is noted that he deliberately omitted, "with the word."

In 1 Corinthians 6:11 it also mentions washing. There, unlike those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, believers were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God. Here, too, the washing has reference to the cleansing accomplished by Christ and not the ritual of baptism.

That assumes that the Apostles and the earliest disciples were unfaithful servants who did not disciple all peoples by baptizing and teaching.

--Power outage-- I will finish replying later.

 

[Nic]

Actually, posting passages in their proper context, and not just snippets of verses changes the meaning considerably.

But then, you knew this and this is why you dishonestly chose to post only a small snippet that left out the context.

Good luck with your salvation by works false gospel.

"Dishonestly"? How dramatic! 😆

 

[BJ Bear]

In Titus 3:5 it refers to the washing of regeneration, indicating a cleansing that comes with salvation making us acceptable before a Holy God. Why is the term "water" used? The most likely explanation is that water is the most common element used for washing. Along with the above mentioned, Hebrews 10:22 refers to the new covenant that promises forgiveness of sin as fulfilled by Jesus' death allowing those who trust in that death to come to God because their hearts were sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water. Again, these are picturesque ways of expressing the cleansing affected by Christ's death. None of these passages have any suggestion of a sacramental setting. Nothing appears to be part of a formula associated with baptism such as "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, the idea of washing involves bathing rather than just a few drops of water or a quick dip into the water. In addition, baptism is always administered individually whereas this context speaks of the effect of Christ's death on the body of believers. As initially stated then, the washing of water is a metaphorical way to express cleansing.

He is hedging his bet again, he doesn't know what it means but he knows it doesn't or can't refer to baptism because of his categorically false base assumption noted in my previous reply.

As mentioned above, not only is this a metaphorical expression of redemption, but it also evokes the imagery of the bridal bath. This is significant since the present passage deals with the relationship of the husband to his wife. The prenuptial bath in Jewish marital customs reflected the imagery of God's marriage to Israel related in Ezekiel 16. At the time of her birth, Israel was in a pitiable state, lying in blood, uncleansed by the washing of water, and was abhorred by all (16:4-6). When she grew up God entered into a covenant with her and bathed her with water, washed off the blood, anointed her with oil, and clothed her with the finest materials, making her exceedingly beautiful, fit to be a queen (16:8-14). The custom of prenuptial bathing seemed to be practiced also among the Greeks. Analogous to this bridal bath, the present verse relates that Christ's death on behalf of the church was to cleanse her by the "washing of the water."

(Harold W. Hoehner, "Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary", pp. 753-754)

It doesn't or can't refer to baptism so he now offers this other passage as a possibility, but it refers to washing in some other context. Anything to try and distract people from what Scripture says.

It is comical the way he has tried to avoid the elephant in the room, kind of like the guy in the Wizard Of Oz who says, "Ignore the little man behind the curtain."

 

[Mike McK]

Don't care. I showed you what scripture says. I showed you what the original text says. I showed you what the grammar says. I showed you historical evidence. I cited respected scholars.

edit divisive comments

 

[BJ Bear]

OK. I've shown you what the Bible says.
I've shown you what the original text says. I've shown you what the grammar says. I've given you corroborating verses.

What you've shown are out of context passages in order to infer that Scripture doesn't or can't say what it means, misunderstood grammar, and irrelevant passages.

If you believe you're saved by your works, then there's nothing more I can do for you.

That is an specious claim after it has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that the one that works through baptism is God.

Take a lesson from Mary. Yes, that Mary, who is a model of faith. In Luke 1 when the angel came to let her know what is going down in Luke 1:37 there are two words that English translators choose to pass over in order to render it as, "all things." Those words are, "every word (or utterance.)" The response of blessed Mary should be the response of all the faithful. "Behold the slave of the Lord. Let it be according to your word." What God says is the way it is and the way it is going to be.

""Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”

38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her." Luke 1:36-38 -NKJV

 

[BJ Bear]

Actually, posting passages in their proper context, and not just snippets of verses changes the meaning considerably.

That is true in some instances but in this case it is false. That is why you are uable to demonstrate in 1 Peter 3:21-22 that the acting substantive in verse 21 is not baptism. That is why you are unable to demonstrate that the verb verse 21 is not save. That is why you are unable to demonstrate that the passive object in verse 21 is not you (or us). And that is why you are unable to demonstrate in verses 21 and 22 that baptism does not now save you through the resurrection of Christ.

But then, you knew this and this is why you dishonestly chose to post only a small snippet that left out the context.

I know that you are making specious and false claims in this regard and that is why you are unable to demonstrate the truth of your claim in this regard. See above.

Good luck with your salvation by works false gospel.

That is yet another specious and false claim since 1 Peter 3:21-22 says baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Mike McK]

NT

 

[Mike McK]

NT

 

[BJ Bear]

Don't care. I showed you what scripture says. I showed you what the original text says. I showed you what the grammar says. I showed you historical evidence. I cited respected scholars.

No, you haven't shown any of the above with regard to Scripture. Whatever respect Robertson and Hoehner may have received it remains that they erred in this regard.

I gave a good faith effort to try to correct you. You didn't want to hear the truth.

If you ever acquire an accurate interpretation of Scripture in this regard you will find that you have posted errors throughout this exchange.

edit

 

[Mike McK]

NT

 

[BJ Bear]

edit

That is evidently another false assertion on your part since you haven't been able to demonstrate and cannot demonstrate that it is eisegesis from the actual text of the passages cited or quoted.

God bless you.

 

[BJ Bear]

edit

The word of God in its God given perfect immediate context is not a lie.

 

[Mike McK]

NT

 

[BJ Bear]

And Hell is where your false doctrines will lead you.

Again, if the interpretation offered was false then you could demonstrate that falseness from the text of the passages cited or quoted. This you have not done and are unable to do so.

"If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless." James 1:26 -NKJV