Born Again (again)

[Cat_Herder]

I offered a perfectly plausible explanation of John 3:5 in light of Ezekiel 36. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in this passage. Christian baptism wasn’t instituted yet. If we take Jesus seriously, then nobody will ever enter heaven without baptism under your interpretation, yet the Catholic Church teaches just the opposite.

Let’s turn it around. If faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that saves then all of the victims of abortion, the mentally retarded, children below the age of reason, the elderly who have lost the use of the faculties, and a whole lot of other people who have no access to a Bible or someone to instruct them are all going to miss out on heaven.

Salvation is by GRACE ALONE. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. Baptism only “works” because it is a means of grace. However, salvation is possible when one would desire to be baptized despite not having access to the sacrament. As has been explained to you, that would be a “baptism of desire” situation. And so that covers Dismas (the good thief) and Abraham, and even Gandhi for that matter. Gandhi apparently rejected (Protestant) Christianity because of his perception of the behavior of its adherents. There is a quote attributed to him in which he allegedly said: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” It’s plausible to assert that Gandhi would have converted to Christianity but for the fact that the messengers blundered. (Imagine if the messenger had been Mother Teresa!)

So, how do you know that Christ did not save Gandhi by a special grace? Because Gandhi did not have faith in Christ? Neither did any of the (Lord have mercy) thousands of victims of abortion. For that matter, neither did Enoch and Elijah. And yet they were raptured.

Holding Gandhi accountable for not accepting Christ in those circumstances is akin to holding an unborn baby accountable for his mother’s decision to abort him or holding Enoch and Elijah responsible for failing to be Christians despite being born before Christ. If you believe in salvation by faith alone then you would condemn all of these men, two of whom were prophets, one of whom lived a life of virtue and would have converted but for the fault of others, and one of whom who didn’t get to live out of the womb at all.

For a thorough explosition of the Scriptural basis for the above please read the following Quick Answers:
Shotgun Marriage: Authority and Sacraments
Baptism: Sinner’s Prayer is All Wet
Faith Alone? The Abraham/Bin Laden Dilemma
Wilted TULIP: No Love for Calvinism
A Tale of Two Priesthoods: Holy Orders, Eucharist, and Reconciliation
The Church, Sacraments, and Salvation

 

[Rogare]

Problem: The Jews did not have any sacrifice that could take away sins. If they did, Calvary would have been unnecessary surplusage. Since there was no sacrifice that could take away sins in the OT then Paul’s admonition cannot be referring to the OT sacrifices at all.

I’m not sure why you cut off my quote to say something I already said. Please reread what I said:

Therefore, the “no more sacrifice for sin” would refer to the OT sacrifices that were earlier referenced:** there is no sacrifice that can take away deliberate sins. This was true in the OT and still in the NT. It is a deliberate sin to reject Christ, thus there is no sacrifice to atone for this.**

I included your “problem” in my response; please don’t cut and paste selectively.

[bibledrb]Hebrews 10:26-29[/bibledrb]

Problem: Paul is referring to one who was sanctified by Christ’s blood. Look at verse 29 and notice the past tense. That cannot refer to a Jew who has not yet converted. It must refer to a Christian, and specifically, who had salvation under the New Covenant… and lost it.

I will be forthright, there are many Protestant interpretations of this verse. Since you say this isn’t a reference to the OT sacrifices, then how can any deliberate sins be forgiven? If Christ’s death on Calvary was a sacrifice, and it can’t forgive deliberate sins (which is an absurd statement) then we are doomed. Unless, of course, you hold that the Priest’s confessional has more power than Christ’s blood on the cross.

 

[Rogare]

Let’s turn it around. If faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that saves then all of the victims of abortion, the mentally retarded, children below the age of reason, the elderly who have lost the use of the faculties, and a whole lot of other people who have no access to a Bible or someone to instruct them are all going to miss out on heaven.

Salvation is by GRACE ALONE. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. Baptism only “works” because it is a means of grace. However, salvation is possible when one would desire to be baptized despite not having access to the sacrament. As has been explained to you, that would be a “baptism of desire” situation. And so that covers Dismas (the good thief) and Abraham, and even Gandhi for that matter. Gandhi apparently rejected (Protestant) Christianity because of his perception of the behavior of its adherents. There is a quote attributed to him in which he allegedly said: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” It’s plausible to assert that Gandhi would have converted to Christianity but for the fact that the messengers blundered. (Imagine if the messenger had been Mother Teresa!)

So, how do you know that Christ did not save Gandhi by a special grace? Because Gandhi did not have faith in Christ? Neither did any of the (Lord have mercy) thousands of victims of abortion. For that matter, neither did Enoch and Elijah. And yet they were raptured.

Holding Gandhi accountable for not accepting Christ in those circumstances is akin to holding an unborn baby accountable for his mother’s decision to abort him or holding Enoch and Elijah responsible for failing to be Christians despite being born before Christ. If you believe in salvation by faith alone then you would condemn all of these men, two of whom were prophets, one of whom lived a life of virtue and would have converted but for the fault of others, and one of whom who didn’t get to live out of the womb at all.

For a thorough explosition of the Scriptural basis for the above please read the following Quick Answers:
Shotgun Marriage: Authority and Sacraments
Baptism: Sinner’s Prayer is All Wet
Faith Alone? The Abraham/Bin Laden Dilemma
Wilted TULIP: No Love for Calvinism
A Tale of Two Priesthoods: Holy Orders, Eucharist, and Reconciliation
The Church, Sacraments, and Salvation

I believe you misunderstand sola fide. The Bible is abundantly clear that salvation is by God’s grace alone. What the reformers taught, however, is that this grace is through faith (Ephesians 2:8), not by faith + works.

When it comes to the unborn, mentally infirm, etc., I believe Protestants and Calvinists come to the same conclusion: it’s up to God.

If Ghandi didn’t accept Christ, then he is in hell. I believe God’s word is quite clear on that. I’m sure a lot of Jews liked Christ for feeding them bread or healing their loved ones; that doesn’t mean they came to have faith in him.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I believe you misunderstand sola fide. The Bible is abundantly clear that salvation is by God’s grace alone. What the reformers taught, however, is that this grace is through faith (Ephesians 2:8), not by faith + works.

And the Catholic Church does not teach that grace comes through works, or even faith and works. Grace comes through the means of grace: the Sacraments being the ordinary means, and God being able to provide for other means so as to offer salvation to everyone.

When it comes to the unborn, mentally infirm, etc., I believe Protestants and Calvinists come to the same conclusion: it’s up to God.

I think you meant Protestants and Catholics. Anyway, that statement is not reconcilable with the assertion that salvation is by faith alone. Infants and the mentally infirm are not capable of faith and if faith is an absolute requirement for salvation then they go to hell. But God wills their salvation (1 Tim 2:3-4), therefore either salvation is *not *by faith alone or else God is not omnipotent.

If Ghandi didn’t accept Christ, then he is in hell. I believe God’s word is quite clear on that.

No it isn’t. Show me where. “No one comes to the Father except by Me” doesn’t mean that you get to decide how Christ provides a way to Him for a particular person.

I’m sure a lot of Jews liked Christ for feeding them bread or healing their loved ones; that doesn’t mean they came to have faith in him.

It doesn’t matter whether they did or not because He forgave their sins from the Cross!

Are you beginning to understand now?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m not sure why you cut off my quote to say something I already said. Please reread what I said …
I included your “problem” in my response; please don’t cut and paste selectively.

In that response you asserted that the only sin being referred to is rejection of Christ. It is true that all mortal sins are rejections of Christ but it’s pretty obvious that you meant that the verse means only failure to convert to Christianity. The lists of mortal sins given throughout the Bible are considerably larger and include things like murder and adultery, etc.

Please do not assert ill will where none exists. This is not a contest (although I’ll admit that sometimes it feels like one.)

Since you say this isn’t a reference to the OT sacrifices, then how can any deliberate sins be forgiven? If Christ’s death on Calvary was a sacrifice,

Calvary wasn’t an OT sacrifice. It is the one and only sacrifice of the New Testament. Paul is very clear that Christ’s sacrifice is categorically different from all of the OT sacrifices:

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:4[/BIBLEDRB]

Unless, of course, you hold that the Priest’s confessional has more power than Christ’s blood on the cross.

They’re one and the same thing. The priest acts in the person of Christ to forgive sins, like Paul did when he heard confessions.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 2:10[/BIBLEDRB]

The elders, also known as presbyters or priests, have special authority given by Christ to forgive sins. This is shown throughout the New Testament as explained here.

 

[Rogare]

And the Catholic Church does not teach that grace comes through works, or even faith and works. Grace comes through the means of grace: the Sacraments being the ordinary means, and God being able to provide for other means so as to offer salvation to everyone.

Where does the Bible teach that grace comes through the sacraments? I remember reading

For by grace are ye saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8)

Where can I find the verse that teaches "by grace we are saved through baptism, confirmation, confession, the Eucharist, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction?

[QUOTEI think you meant Protestants and *Catholics. Anyway, that statement is not reconcilable with the assertion that salvation is by faith alone. Infants and the mentally infirm are not capable of faith and if faith is an absolute requirement for salvation then they go to hell. But God wills their salvation (1 Tim 2:3-4), therefore either salvation is *not *by faith alone or else God is not omnipotent.

Yes, I did mean Protestants and Catholics, so I apologize.

I’m afraid you are in the same pickle I am. An unborn baby is incapable of receiving the sacraments. Once again, I trust God to take care of the situation. You are the one putting unnecessary restraints on God’s ability to save.

Do you posit that unborn babies are in hell due to the failure to receive sacraments?

If Ghandi didn’t accept Christ, then he is in hell. I believe God’s word is quite clear on that.

No it isn’t. Show me where. “No one comes to the Father except by Me” doesn’t mean that you get to decide how Christ provides a way to Him for a particular person.

Am I speaking with Rob Bell here? Will anybody go to hell in your scheme?

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:12)

I say salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ. You say it comes by grace through the sacraments. Let’s see who makes the consistent conclusion.

I say since Ghandi didn’t have faith in Christ he is in hell. You say that even though Ghandi never received a sacrament, he’s still going to heaven. I am able to remain consistent, you are not.

How do you figure that Ghandi isn’t in hell?

It doesn’t matter whether they did or not because He forgave their sins from the Cross!

Are you beginning to understand now?

Oh, so those Jews who did not believe Him to be the Messiah are in Heaven now? Once again, who won’t go to Heaven based on your unbiblical beliefs?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Where does the Bible teach that grace comes through the sacraments? I remember reading [grace through faith] Where can I find the verse that teaches "by grace we are saved through baptism, confirmation, confession, the Eucharist, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction?

You need that verse to say “faith alone” (or, since you are a Calvinist, “predestination alone”) and it doesn’t. God doesn’t require the impossible of people and for a baby, faith is impossible. But for someone who is capable of having faith and fails to do so, then you have a sin. If it’s a grave, willful and deliberate lack of faith, you have a Hebrews 10:26 situation, othewise known as a mortal sin; and that person’s lack of faith causes them to lose their salvation.

I’m afraid you are in the same pickle I am. An unborn baby is incapable of receiving the sacraments. Once again, I trust God to take care of the situation. You are the one putting unnecessary restraints on God’s ability to save.Do you posit that unborn babies are in hell due to the failure to receive sacraments?

Again we need to back up a bit. Grace is what saves. The sacraments in and of themselves do not have any power to save anyone. The reason why they do have the power to save is because God has made them means of grace.

Grace is unmerited. Nothing has to be done to recieve it. But one cannot be assured of having it without submitting to the normal means of recieving it, which is the sacraments.

In other words, Baptism is the ordinary means of getting rid of original sin but not the only means. However, baptism IS the only means of getting rid of original sin that has been entrusted to the Church or to men in general. God wills and certainly accomplish the salvation of anyone–but not if His gift is rejected, namely, if His commandment to baptize is deliberately set aside.

Am I speaking with Rob Bell here? Will anybody go to hell in your scheme?

It’s not my scheme, but anyway, the answer to that question is yes. Everyone who commits a mortal sin and doesn’t repent forefeits heaven. If someone knows she need to be baptized to be saved and she puts it off because it’s embarassing, well… she does so at her own peril. Or if she is baptized, and then gets an abortion, and knows that was a mortal sin and puts off confession… same thing.

I say salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ. You say it comes by grace through the sacraments. Let’s see who makes the consistent conclusion.

I say since Ghandi didn’t have faith in Christ he is in hell. You say that even though Ghandi never received a sacrament, he’s still going to heaven. I am able to remain consistent, you are not.

How do you figure that Ghandi isn’t in hell?

He never had a fair chance to learn about and accept Christ and so he wasn’t aware that baptism was necessary for salvation. Jesus Christ does not require the impossible of people as a condition of salvation. That would be contrary to His mission to ransom the world. His yoke is easy, His burden is light.

Oh, so those Jews who did not believe Him to be the Messiah are in Heaven now? Once again, who won’t go to Heaven based on your unbiblical beliefs?

Jesus says “you are forgiven” == you are forgiven. He is God. Whether or not a man thinks that is biblical or not is not relevant. God wants to save them, and even though they committed deicide, He did not hold their sin against them and in the end, that’s all that matters.

Jesus is Lord. He is not a book.

 

[CompSciGuy]

As a Protestant, I do not reject tradition. I read the ECF’s quite a bit and am edified by their teachings. However, only the Scriptures are infallible- a hundred fallible ECF’s do not form an infallible aggregate by which to establish extra-Biblical doctrines. Therefore, if an ECF’s interpretation of a passage causes an exegetical difficulty, as it does here, then it cannot be correct.

First of all, the writings early church fathers are not the source of the Church’s infallible teaching, the apostolic teaching of the Church came to us straight from the apostles and has been preserved for all these 2000 years. The writings of the church fathers are merely [very strong] evidence of the presence of apostolic tradition in the early church. The Church always was the source of divine revelation, and always has been. Believers in sola scriptura are basically elevating their own interpretations of the scripture above those of the Church, which has kept the faith in its entirety for 2000 years. It’s pretty simple, if I have to choose from Calvin, Wesley, Luther, or the Apostles for the doctrines of my faith, I think I’d be better off sticking with the Apostles.

 

[James224]

In the other Born Again thread, things slightly derailed so it was suggested that a new thread was created to refocus the conversation.

The verse in question is John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The Catholic interpretation is that this verse plainly refers to water baptism.

There are a variety of other interpretations that separate baptism from this verse. The main reasons are as follows:

1. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus.
2. Christian baptism had not yet been initiated so Nicodemus couldn’t possibly know that Jesus was referring to baptism.

In light of this, another interpretation is offered. Rather than this being a reference to baptism, it is a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-26-

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

This makes sense as it refers to both water and the Spirit. Also, Nicodemus is later chastised by Jesus in the same conversation. In verse 10, Jesus says:

Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

Essentially, and consistent with the Ezekiel 36 interpretation, Jesus is chastising Nicodemus because as a teacher of Israel, he should know the OT well enough to pick up on Jesus’ reference to Ezekiel 36. This interpretation avoids the problems shown above as well as one more issue that was brought up with the baptism interpretation.

If Jesus is referring to baptism in John 3:5, then it is undeniable that nobody will go Heaven without water baptism (being born of water). However, the Catholic Church maintains that it is entirely possible for one to go to Heaven without water baptism. How is one to resolve this tension?

First of all, Here’s how I would show that John 3:5 is referring to Water Baptism. Look at the context of the first 5 chapters of John. After this, in John 6, Jesus goes into the Eucharistic Discourse.

John 1:29-33 – Jesus is Baptized.
John 2:6,9 – Jesus transforms the “Baptismoi” or Baptismal Waters.
John 3:5,22 – Jesus teaches on Baptism. Jesus Baptizes.
John 4:1-2 – Jesus commissions his Apostles to Baptize.
John 5:2-4 - The healing waters of Bethsaida - points to Baptism

This is the normal means of entering the Church, ie, God’s grace. 1 John 5:8 says, "
And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one." This proves that John 3:5 is speaking of 1 event. Also Eph 4:5.

 

[CopticChristian]

In the other Born Again thread, things slightly derailed so it was suggested that a new thread was created to refocus the conversation.

The verse in question is John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The Catholic interpretation is that this verse plainly refers to water baptism.

There are a variety of other interpretations that separate baptism from this verse. The main reasons are as follows:

1. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus.
2. Christian baptism had not yet been initiated so Nicodemus couldn’t possibly know that Jesus was referring to baptism.

In light of this, another interpretation is offered. Rather than this being a reference to baptism, it is a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-26-

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

This makes sense as it refers to both water and the Spirit. Also, Nicodemus is later chastised by Jesus in the same conversation. In verse 10, Jesus says:

Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

Essentially, and consistent with the Ezekiel 36 interpretation, Jesus is chastising Nicodemus because as a teacher of Israel, he should know the OT well enough to pick up on Jesus’ reference to Ezekiel 36. This interpretation avoids the problems shown above as well as one more issue that was brought up with the baptism interpretation.

If Jesus is referring to baptism in John 3:5, then it is undeniable that nobody will go Heaven without water baptism (being born of water). However, the Catholic Church maintains that it is entirely possible for one to go to Heaven without water baptism. How is one to resolve this tension?

In reference to your belief that Baptism was not yet instituted as it regards the gospel of John and Nicodemus it would be possible to consider that Matthew was written prior to John and Baptism was being practiced. Jesus spoke just as Paul wrote. How often do you find Paul explaining to the Judaizing Christians, as in Romans, what they knew, the Old Testament and did not understand. It is probable that the Master Jesus knew just as you say and wondered why Nicodemus did not understand what was told prior to this encounter. Paul himself says, has God abandoned His people, by no means, for to you were given the utterances of Scripture. Yet they did not see the New in the Old. It appears that you do not either.

With respect to your proposition that you cannot go to heaven without Baptism. My answer would be why do you want to presume upon God. If you have a choice and the choice is Baptism/regeneration/heaven or NoBaptism/noregeneration/noheaven then the choice is yours. Is it possible that without Baptism, without choice you can go to heaven, then I would say yes however to know that if you have a choice and because of reason and stubborness you choose not to be Baptized then the onus is on you and your children. Fallible me and the infallible Word can make fallible mistakes. Protestants are divided as to Pedobaptists, Credobaptists, Baptism is ordinance and is or is not regenerative. Lutherans Methodists and Anglicans believe the following: Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth.

There is no tension. If you believe in Baptism do it. If you do not believe in Baptism don’t. If you believe that Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans are Christians then why would you doubt the need for Baptism 2000 years later. They’ve been doing it for 500 years and the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many of the Eastern non united Churches have been for 2000 years. Like the rolling stones once sang…Tiiiiiime is on my side, oh yes it is…Tiiiiime is on my side, yes it is…now we have the real love, the kind that you need…you’ll come runnin back…oh you know the song.

 

[CopticChristian]

I believe you misunderstand sola fide. The Bible is abundantly clear that salvation is by God’s grace alone. What the reformers taught, however, is that this grace is through faith (Ephesians 2:8), not by faith + works.

When it comes to the unborn, mentally infirm, etc., I believe Protestants and Calvinists come to the same conclusion: it’s up to God.

If Ghandi didn’t accept Christ, then he is in hell. I believe God’s word is quite clear on that. I’m sure a lot of Jews liked Christ for feeding them bread or healing their loved ones; that doesn’t mean they came to have faith in him.

What the reformers/white europeans creating a new religion taught was a misreading of the book of Romans. Romans teaches that the Jew was not saved by “works of Law”. The torah is Moral Law and Leviticus, works of law, ceremonies.

Go back and read Romans 2 & 3 carefully. At the end of 2 Paul says that the uncircumcised can keep the law. This cannot in anyway be the ceremonial law only the Jew had the ceremonial “ergōn nomou”, Greek for “works of Law”. The point that Paul was making was that just because you are circumcised, a work of the law, and just because you do all the ceremonies unless your heart is circumcised as the Gentile who keeps the Moral Law then you are lost and under the power of sin and cannot be saved.

James says it and Paul says it in Ephesians For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

If you read the entire canon,not just one, Council of Trent on Justification then you will see that 500 years ago the Catholic Church got it right and the Protestants didn’t get it at all.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Try reading the Westminster confession and try to explain how you get this saving faith and saving grace. When you do meet me in a telephone booth with all the others that understand this position.