Born Again (again)

[Rogare]

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?

 

[drywall]

or the water may be “the washing of the water of the Word” Eph 5: 26. It is the work of the Holy Spirit appling the Word of God to the heart that brings a person to the point of being born again

Drywall

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

or the water may be “the washing of the water of the Word” Eph 5: 26. It is the work of the Holy Spirit appling the Word of God to the heart that brings a person to the point of being born again

Drywall

Did Philip get it wrong?

Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: See, here is water: What doth hinder me from being baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip: and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing.

Yes, he had to believe first, but then he was baptized.

Didache

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

We know that John used water in baptizing.

Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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?

Did the thief at Christ’s side not go to heaven? Yes, he did. He believed and had circumstances been different, we believe he would have had the desire to be baptized. We believe one with a sincere desire receives the same grace as actuality.

 

[Rogare]

Did the thief at Christ’s side not go to heaven? Yes, he did. He believed and had circumstances been different, we believe he would have had the desire to be baptized. We believe one with a sincere desire receives the same grace as actuality.

Of course he did, but that is perfectly consistent with the interpretation offered in the original post: the thief on the cross was born by water and the spirit as God sprinkled him with clean water, cleansed him from his uncleanness, gave him a new heart, put a new spirit within him, and exchanged his heart of stone for his heart of flesh (per Ezekiel 36). Your conclusion rests on a number of assumptions that can’t be proven true and don’t have to be if a consistent hermeneutic is used.

There isn’t a single instance in the Gospels where Jesus instructs someone to be baptized (until the Great Commission in Matthew 28). Every time Jesus pronounces salvation, it’s based on the person’s faith (Luke 7:50). There isn’t a single instance in the Bible where “born of water” refers to baptism…unless you count reading baptism anachronistically into John 3:5. Had Jesus wanted to say “you must be baptized and born of the Spirit to enter Heaven” He very easily could have. He obviously knew what baptism was.

So, in your scheme, Jesus told Nicodemus one thing but then contradicted His own teaching when He assured the thief on the cross of salvation w/out water baptism. I don’t know about you, but I have an issue with that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course he did, but that is perfectly consistent with the interpretation offered in the original post: the thief on the cross was born by water and the spirit as God sprinkled him with clean water, cleansed him from his uncleanness, gave him a new heart, put a new spirit within him, and exchanged his heart of stone for his heart of flesh (per Ezekiel 36). Your conclusion rests on a number of assumptions that can’t be proven true and don’t have to be if a consistent hermeneutic is used.

There isn’t a single instance in the Gospels where Jesus instructs someone to be baptized (until the Great Commission in Matthew 28). Every time Jesus pronounces salvation, it’s based on the person’s faith (Luke 7:50). There isn’t a single instance in the Bible where “born of water” refers to baptism…unless you count reading baptism anachronistically into John 3:5. Had Jesus wanted to say “you must be baptized and born of the Spirit to enter Heaven” He very easily could have. He obviously knew what baptism was.

So, in your scheme, Jesus told Nicodemus one thing but then contradicted His own teaching when He assured the thief on the cross of salvation w/out water baptism. I don’t know about you, but I have an issue with that.

Please do not put words in my mouth, especially to infer that I think Christ contradicted Himself. There maybe mysteries to His teachings that we do not understand, but He never contradicted Himself.

I explained that had the circumstances been different, the thief would have had the desire to fulfill all Christ’s teachings. (You say God baptized the thief with water, then you say Christ assured the thief on the cross without baptism?) Also, please remember that Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition.

Let’s move on to the post before. Did Philip get the teaching wrong when he baptized the Eunuch? That specifically states they went to the water…

 

[justtryin]

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?

I think the gap in the tension can be resolved by the fullness of the Catholic Church’s position on Baptism. What has been lacking is the inclusion of Baptism of Desire and Baptism in Blood.

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

 

[Rogare]

Please do not put words in my mouth, especially to infer that I think Christ contradicted Himself. There maybe mysteries to His teachings that we do not understand, but He never contradicted Himself.

I explained that had the circumstances been different, the thief would have had the desire to fulfill all Christ’s teachings. (You say God baptized the thief with water, then you say Christ assured the thief on the cross without baptism?) Also, please remember that Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition.

Let’s move on to the post before. Did Philip get the teaching wrong when he baptized the Eunuch? That specifically states they went to the water…

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I also think it’s a safe assumption that under different circumstances the thief would have been baptized. However, he was not and still received salvation. I never said God baptized him with water - the passage in Ezekiel 36 has nothing to do with baptism, but the inner change that God alone works to save man.

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.

And No, Phillip was not in error by baptizing. Baptism is an incredibly important rite that was established by our Lord. I am not suggesting that baptism is optional or unimportant, it simply is not essential for salvation to occur. For example, during the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, he and the others receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Reception of the Holy Spirit is the sign of a true believer - Romans 8:9.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I also think it’s a safe assumption that under different circumstances the thief would have been baptized. However, he was not and still received salvation. I never said God baptized him with water - the passage in Ezekiel 36 has nothing to do with baptism, but the inner change that God alone works to save man.

He received the baptism by desire, the same as if he had received it by water.

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.

Okay however, the scriptures were written the first of the early Church fathers, also fallible men. Those men that wrote scriptures, had opportunity to explain the ‘interpretation’ of what they wrote to their successors. The continuation of sharing the interpretation is a part of the Sacred Tradition.

I was once a Protestant, converting in 1985. My trouble with the Protestant interpretation was there were so many interpretations, many conflicting with the other evident by the different Churches with slight to great differences in Church doctrine. That alone goes against the Scriptures; be of the same mind and judgment.

There is no difficulty ‘here’. Christ Himself was baptized with water. Was there no example in this? Yes, there was.

Touching on scriptures being the only infallible source. Here we run into trouble when we only have fallible men to present an interpretation.

Then we look in the infallible scriptures and we find no canon; what books belong in the Bible and which do not. Scriptures state they are ‘useful’, but not completely sufficient. On the other hand, scriptures state the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church.

This was the same Church that was established and thrived before there was a New Testament. In fact, it was the Church that gave us the New Testament, through those fallible men of the Church.

The Church received the promise of Christ that the Spirit of Truth would make all things known to them, and that He would be with them until the consummation of the world. How can the Spirit of Truth, and Christ being with the Church, make it less than fallible. One must have faith in the power of Christ to fulfill His promises.

One last thing, it is in John we see those promises of Christ. To demonstrate that He was talking to His Church, through those He chose and appointed, one must read the audience of who heard what Christ was saying. There were times He spoke to the multitudes and other times He only spoke to His Apostles. Starting at John chapter 13, we see Christ is speaking only to His disciples. They are His only audience, until those that came to arrest Him in the garden. Christ chose and appointed men, giving them specific instructions. A layperson today cannot apply every instruction to the authoritative men of the Church as instructions to the laity. Read those things Christ spoke to the multitudes and you see more in line that the subject of discussion was quite different.

And No, Phillip was not in error by baptizing. Baptism is an incredibly important rite that was established by our Lord. I am not suggesting that baptism is optional or unimportant, it simply is not essential for salvation to occur. For example, during the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, he and the others receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Reception of the Holy Spirit is the sign of a true believer - Romans 8:9.

Technically, if all we had to do was to ‘believe in Him’ we would only need John 3:16, but there were many things that Christ taught the Apostles, that were not written about. You cannot simply pull a verse out and state this is it. Romans 8:9 does not say Holy Spirit, just as Christ did not say baptized with water. How is it we apply Holy Spirit as the sign of a true believer, yet born again of water and spirit does not mean baptism?

 

[Rogare]

He received the baptism by desire, the same as if he had received it by water.

Where is the earliest mention of this “baptism by desire?”

Okay however, the scriptures were written the first of the early Church fathers, also fallible men. Those men that wrote scriptures, had opportunity to explain the ‘interpretation’ of what they wrote to their successors. The continuation of sharing the interpretation is a part of the Sacred Tradition.

Yes, but these fallible men were guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). There is absolutely no assurance that anyone other than the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to write scripture. You can choose any two Church Fathers you want and you will find they contradict each other. You won’t find the same thing in the apostles’ New Testament writings.

I was once a Protestant, converting in 1985. My trouble with the Protestant interpretation was there were so many interpretations, many conflicting with the other evident by the different Churches with slight to great differences in Church doctrine. That alone goes against the Scriptures; be of the same mind and judgment.

Yes, there are many interpretations, but that doesn’t invalidate all of Protestantism. Just because some Protestant denominations are wrong doesn’t mean that Rome is right by default. However, there are also many Catholic interpretations. Tell me, are you a Thomist, Molinist, or Augustinian? Are you a Traditional Catholic or do you embrace all of Vatican II? Do you agree with SSPX or the sedevancatist position? Are you a liberal catholic or conservative? On paper, the whole “unity” thing looks nice. In practice, however, it’s an absolute joke.

Touching on scriptures being the only infallible source. Here we run into trouble when we only have fallible men to present an interpretation.

Then we look in the infallible scriptures and we find no canon; what books belong in the Bible and which do not. Scriptures state they are ‘useful’, but not completely sufficient. On the other hand, scriptures state the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church.

The sufficiency of Scripture has long been debated and I have nothing novel to add to the discussion. What I am constantly drawn back to is Paul’s statement to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15 (not 16 as you referenced)
**
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
**

Holy Scripture IS all we need to obtain salvation according to Paul. The Church did not “give” us the Bible. They over time recognized which books were inspired by God. The Church did not so much as “decide” the canon as much as it recognized it. Let me ask you this, how did the Israelites determine the extent of the OT? The Church’s role is to uphold and protect the truth that was delivered to it; 1 Timothy 3:15 has absolutely nothing to do with infallible teaching authority. That’s a dishonest interpretation of the verse.

This was the same Church that was established and thrived before there was a New Testament. In fact, it was the Church that gave us the New Testament, through those fallible men of the Church.

The Church received the promise of Christ that the Spirit of Truth would make all things known to them, and that He would be with them until the consummation of the world. How can the Spirit of Truth, and Christ being with the Church, make it less than fallible. One must have faith in the power of Christ to fulfill His promises.

The New Testament church did indeed have Scripture to rely upon. The sermons delivered by the apostles were steeped in OT references. We read that the Bereans (Acts 17:11) checked all that the apostles said by referring to the OT Scriptures that they did have. Furthermore, there were apostolic writings already circulating at the time. In fact, Peter already refers to Paul’s circulating letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Technically, if all we had to do was to ‘believe in Him’ we would only need John 3:16, but there were many things that Christ taught the Apostles, that were not written about. You cannot simply pull a verse out and state this is it. Romans 8:9 does not say Holy Spirit, just as Christ did not say baptized with water. How is it we apply Holy Spirit as the sign of a true believer, yet born again of water and spirit does not mean baptism?

.

I never referenced John 3:16 - not once. Romans 8:9 plainly states “Spirit of God” - If that doesn’t refer to the Holy Spirit then I’d like to know what other Spirit of God exists. Your final sentence is a non sequitur. Spirit of God is a common reference to the Holy Spirit. There isn’t a single reference to baptism as “being born of water.”

You have derailed the discussion to a debate on sola scriptura. Let’s try to keep this on topic. You have yet to prove that “born of water” refers to baptism. You are assuming something you’ve yet to prove. Just because the Father’s interpreted it that way doesn’t make it absolutely true. Many fathers taught the ransom theory of atonement; unless I’m wrong, the Church no longer teaches this. Obviously all that the fathers wrote should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where is the earliest mention of this “baptism by desire?”

We’ve been discussing the first example I know of.

Yes, but these fallible men were guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). There is absolutely no assurance that anyone other than the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to write scripture. You can choose any two Church Fathers you want and you will find they contradict each other. You won’t find the same thing in the apostles’ New Testament writings.

Yes, and as the holy men were inspired by the Holy Spirit, no man should privately interpret scriptures.

The problem with the rest of your statement is, the early Church fathers defined the canon of scriptures.

Yes, there are many interpretations, but that doesn’t invalidate all of Protestantism. Just because some Protestant denominations are wrong doesn’t mean that Rome is right by default. However, there are also many Catholic interpretations. Tell me, are you a Thomist, Molinist, or Augustinian? Are you a Traditional Catholic or do you embrace all of Vatican II? Do you agree with SSPX or the sedevancatist position? Are you a liberal catholic or conservative? On paper, the whole “unity” thing looks nice. In practice, however, it’s an absolute joke.

Okay, then tell me which denomination of Protestantism is correct with their interpretation and how can I know for sure that is correct?

No, Rome is right because it was the only Church, until the great schism. Then there was an East and West CATHOLIC Church. It wasn’t until the 1500s that Protestantism began with Martin Luther, who stated only his interpretation mattered. Of course that didn’t work out too well when it became a common defense of new denominations, until we are where we are today.

There is unity and it’s not as you are portraying it. There are things we are at liberty to disagree on and things that are doctrine.

Also, please be warned, I will not tolerate any disrespect of my faith, on a Catholic forum, and will report posts that show disrespect, and that’s no JOKE. Please take a respectful tone towards Catholicism.

The sufficiency of Scripture has long been debated and I have nothing novel to add to the discussion. What I am constantly drawn back to is Paul’s statement to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15 (not 16 as you referenced)
**
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
**

The Holy Scriptures spoken about here was the Old Testament, and they knew them since their infancy because the scriptures were ‘spoken’ to them in the Temple and Synagogues. The people of those days recognized Christ, the Messiah, through the prophesies of the Old Testament.

Holy Scripture IS all we need to obtain salvation according to Paul. The Church did not “give” us the Bible. They over time recognized which books were inspired by God. The Church did not so much as “decide” the canon as much as it recognized it. Let me ask you this, how did the Israelites determine the extent of the OT? The Church’s role is to uphold and protect the truth that was delivered to it; 1 Timothy 3:15 has absolutely nothing to do with infallible teaching authority. That’s a dishonest interpretation of the verse.

Paul was the one who wrote the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. Paul also wrote that the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church.

Books didn’t endorse themselves as scriptures. If the Bible was all that was needed it would include the canon. The early Church fathers defined the canon. There were many writings that were in consideration, including the writings of the early Church fathers themselves. Then there was the Pseudepigrapha. It was not just ‘generally’ recognized. Compare that to the many interpretations of Protestantism today and we’d still be defining the canon.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The New Testament church did indeed have Scripture to rely upon. The sermons delivered by the apostles were steeped in OT references. We read that the Bereans (Acts 17:11) checked all that the apostles said by referring to the OT Scriptures that they did have. Furthermore, there were apostolic writings already circulating at the time. In fact, Peter already refers to Paul’s circulating letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

And there was the ‘oral tradition’, evidenced in scriptures themselves. The New Testament gives names to the magicians of Pharoah, Jannes and Mambre. You will not find those names in the Old Testament. What about the chair of Moses that Jesus spoke about? It’s not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures. What about the rock, that followed the Israelites? Again, not in scriptures. In Acts, the author tells us Jesus said, ‘It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.’ How did he know that? It’s not recorded anywhere else in the Gospels.

I never referenced John 3:16 - not once. Romans 8:9 plainly states “Spirit of God” - If that doesn’t refer to the Holy Spirit then I’d like to know what other Spirit of God exists. Your final sentence is a non sequitur. Spirit of God is a common reference to the Holy Spirit. There isn’t a single reference to baptism as “being born of water.”

John 3:16 was a comparison of selecting one verse and building it as stand alone.

It also states Spirit of Christ, still does not say the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Paul wrote Holy Ghost 21 times, but felt the need for different terminology in this instance?

Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, but the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

…is a good way to understand what Christ meant here…

Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

You have derailed the discussion to a debate on sola scriptura. Let’s try to keep this on topic. You have yet to prove that “born of water” refers to baptism. You are assuming something you’ve yet to prove. Just because the Father’s interpreted it that way doesn’t make it absolutely true. Many fathers taught the ransom theory of atonement; unless I’m wrong, the Church no longer teaches this. Obviously all that the fathers wrote should be taken with a grain of salt.

You state, ‘only the Bible is infallible’ and then cry derailed discussion when I provide the Catholic view? Watch what you say, because we will respond to everything.

Oh, I’m on a Catholic forum and demanding them to prove something doesn’t mean what I’ve interpreted it to mean! Maybe you better start with where you receive your authority to state ‘infallibly’ that yours and only your interpretation is correct.

I’ve seen the grain of salt argument on the early Church fathers. That usually means, whatever supports Catholic doctrines is not necessarily correct.

Would Ignatius writing about the ‘Catholic Church’ in 106AD be one of those ‘salty’ moments?

 

[Rogare]

And there was the ‘oral tradition’, evidenced in scriptures themselves. The New Testament gives names to the magicians of Pharoah, Jannes and Mambre. You will not find those names in the Old Testament. What about the chair of Moses that Jesus spoke about? It’s not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures. What about the rock, that followed the Israelites? Again, not in scriptures. In Acts, the author tells us Jesus said, ‘It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.’ How did he know that? It’s not recorded anywhere else in the Gospels.

I have already stated that I have no problem with tradition. I just feel that it should be subordinate to Scripture which is vastly at odds with what Rome teaches.

John 3:16 was a comparison of selecting one verse and building it as stand alone.

I am a Calvinist, so I promise you my understanding of John 3:16 is vastly different than yours or even other evangelicals.

It also states Spirit of Christ, still does not say the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Paul wrote Holy Ghost 21 times, but felt the need for different terminology in this instance?

So you’re saying it’s possible that Spirit of God does NOT refer to the Holy Spirit. You’re really grasping at straws here to prove your unsupportable interpretation of John 3:5.

You state, ‘only the Bible is infallible’ and then cry derailed discussion when I provide the Catholic view?

I didn’t cry anything. I simply pointed to the red herring you threw out. This approach is often taken by those who can’t respond to the original argument which you’ve shown several times now. You’ve yet to show anything that would demonstrate that John 3:5 refers to baptism. Watch your fallacies please.

Watch what you say, because we will respond to everything.

Really? You conveniently decided not to respond to my questions regarding Catholic unity. It’s hard to take you seriously when you’re going to state something as bold as this and do the exact opposite by avoiding an argument I made.

I’ve seen the grain of salt argument on the early Church fathers. That usually means, whatever supports Catholic doctrines is not necessarily correct.

Would Ignatius writing about the ‘Catholic Church’ in 106AD be one of those ‘salty’ moments?

Once again, you completely ignored the atonement theory example I gave. A number of Fathers supported the ransom theory of atonement. However, in light of modern day teachings, this once popular teaching is no longer fashionable in RCC circles. Based on your argument, we should accept this debunked theory? Do we have to accept everything the Fathers taught or just what the Church tells us to accept?

It’s beyond dishonest to suggest that by catholic church Ignatius meant the Roman Catholic Church rather than the universal (meaning of catholic) church. I have no problem with Ignatius using the word Catholic, but once again, this is a plain red herring.

It seems to me that out of desperation you have turned to any other topic you can think of to avoid trying to support a nonexistent argument. Once again, let’s please stick to the topic of the original post: John 3:5 and baptism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have already stated that I have no problem with tradition. I just feel that it should be subordinate to Scripture which is vastly at odds with what Rome teaches.

Too much to discuss in one thread, much less one post, but the traditions you hold too, are they only old as Calvinism? Paul wrote to hold the traditions, whether by word or epistle. John wrote there were many things Christ did, that are not written and that the world itself could not contain all the information. Is all those things to be forgotten or considered ‘unimportant’?

I could read the Gospels in an afternoon, yet I’m to believe that out of three years ministry, one afternoon of reading could cover the importance of Christ?

I think your view of tradition is short.

I am a Calvinist, so I promise you my understanding of John 3:16 is vastly different than yours or even other evangelicals.

And what makes your understanding superior over everyone else, including the very Church that safeguarded the scriptures for 1500 years before the Protestant reformation?

So you’re saying it’s possible that Spirit of God does NOT refer to the Holy Spirit. You’re really grasping at straws here to prove your unsupportable interpretation of John 3:5.

So you’re saying it’s possible that being born of water and Spirit does not refer to baptism? You’re grasping at straws too. See how that works. You haven’t proven it to be another way. You say, it doesn’t mean baptism, now prove the negative.

I didn’t cry anything. I simply pointed to the red herring you threw out. This approach is often taken by those who can’t respond to the original argument which you’ve shown several times now. You’ve yet to show anything that would demonstrate that John 3:5 refers to baptism. Watch your fallacies please.

You cannot state the Bible is the only infallible source and then say I derailed the discussion by responding to that statement.

Really? You conveniently decided not to respond to my questions regarding Catholic unity. It’s hard to take you seriously when you’re going to state something as bold as this and do the exact opposite by avoiding an argument I made.

Catholics are unified and you’re using a misrepresentation to try and justify hundreds, possibly thousands, of denominations. Which you haven’t answered a simple question. How can you show me that your Church is correct in all it’s doctrines and interpretations of scriptures over all other Churches? Where does your Church get the authority to challenge the correctness of the Catholic Church?

Once again, you completely ignored the atonement theory example I gave. A number of Fathers supported the ransom theory of atonement. However, in light of modern day teachings, this once popular teaching is no longer fashionable in RCC circles. Based on your argument, we should accept this debunked theory? Do we have to accept everything the Fathers taught or just what the Church tells us to accept?

It’s beyond dishonest to suggest that by catholic church Ignatius meant the Roman Catholic Church rather than the universal (meaning of catholic) church. I have no problem with Ignatius using the word Catholic, but once again, this is a plain red herring.

It seems to me that out of desperation you have turned to any other topic you can think of to avoid trying to support a nonexistent argument. Once again, let’s please stick to the topic of the original post: John 3:5 and baptism.

There seems to be a pattern of asking multiple questions and ignoring any put forth to yourself and you have the audacity to say I am beyond dishonest?

You appear to be fishing, at least you mention fish enough.

Tell me one thing. If you believe the Catholic Church a ‘joke’ and in such error, what is your goal on a Catholic forum? What purpose do you hope to achieve here?

 

[Rogare]

So you’re saying it’s possible that being born of water and Spirit does not refer to baptism? You’re grasping at straws too. See how that works. You haven’t proven it to be another way. You say, it doesn’t mean baptism, now prove the negative.

Since you won’t refocus, I will. This is the only part of your diatribe that had anything to do with the topic.

Of course I’m saying it’s possible that being born of water and Spirit does not refer to baptism. That’s what my entire opening post was about. Since you refused to go back and read it before typing that sentence, let me recap.

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.

You have made no attempt to interact with the text itself (John 3:5 or Ezekiel 36). All you have done is essentially say “well, the Church teaches it so I believe it.” You’ve made an appeal to sola ecclesia and failed to do any critical thinking whatsoever. If you have nothing to offer in the way of exegesis or a careful explanation, then I don’t know why you bothered responding. I still would like to know when the term “baptism of desire” originated- it seems as theologically sound as limbo to be honest.

 

[justtryin]

I still would like to know when the term “baptism of desire” originated- it seems as theologically sound as limbo to be honest.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X

I’m sure there are many more sources out there.

 

[Rogare]

Also, if someone else would care to answer this for me.

It seems as if the whole “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” theory would contradict some pretty weighty statements of old:

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

 

[Atemi]

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?

Unfortunately, many resolve this contradiction by ignoring it.

This cannot be considered a resolution, IMV.

…

 

[Atemi]

I think the gap in the tension can be resolved by the fullness of the Catholic Church’s position on Baptism. What has been lacking is the inclusion of Baptism of Desire and Baptism in Blood.

Our Lord said “water” in John 3:5.

The RCC teaches that this verse is speaking of water baptism in particular.

…

 

[justtryin]

The RCC teaches that this verse is speaking of water baptism in particular.

…

But it is Baptism that is being discussed. In a fair discussion the Fullness of The Church’s Teachings must be considered. Once again… the Catholic Church is not sola scriptura.