Born Again (again)

[Atemi]

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

But it is Baptism that is being discussed.

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

It is not my claim that this verse is Jesus teaching on the ritual of water baptism in John 3:5. It is the RCC that teaches that Jesus is teaching on water baptism in this verse.

…

 

[Atemi]

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.”

Yes.

What men said long after the Apostles about the necessity of water baptism does not match what the RCC teaches today.

When we see that the “Catholic Church” of Ambrose’s day taught something vastly different than the “Catholic Church” of today, it is hard to get our hands around John 3:5.

Many Catholics today may cite the testimony of the church fathers regarding this verse, but then again, that testimony actually opens a bigger can of worms than expected.

…

 

[justtryin]

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

It is not my claim that this verse is Jesus teaching on the ritual of water baptism in John 3:5. It is the RCC that teaches that Jesus is teaching on water baptism in this verse.

…

Nevertheless, it still stands that:

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

You can throw in points and once raised decide we have to stay with the original topic? Then I provide explanations of how we were discussing a point, that you raised, so you can make it appear I’m not refocusing?

There is no sharing in these type discussions. I provide explanations and you reject them, without a documented authority.

Whether you agree, or not, an answer was provided. There is no honesty in repeating ‘you won’t address it’. I do not recognize your interpretation as correct and cannot be held to only that interpretation. I can see how you ‘might’ arrive at your interpretation, yet I still find it in error.

That leaves the question of ‘what is your agenda’?

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 offered a perfectly plausible, yet biased based on your interpretation, explanation.

I offered a perfectly plausible explanation of Romans 8:9 and how it is used to explain what Christ meant in John chapter 6, when He spoke of spirit and flesh.

I take Jesus very seriously and find no contradictions in His teachings, even semantic ‘possibilities’ only raised for the purposes of debate, or more accurately attempting to show you correct those Catholics. Read your post, possibly and plausible, no proof positive of anything except you take your interpretation over anyone else.

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.

I have not said ‘well, the Church teaches it so I believe it’. Talk about dishonesty in a discussion. Please show me where I stated such or explain why it’s necessary to use false statements.

By you’re last ad homenim, it’s even easier to see what’s going on. I think I’ve seen this pattern before. Have you ever been banned from CAF.? npatrol:

 

[Rogare]

You can throw in points and once raised decide we have to stay with the original topic? Then I provide explanations of how we were discussing a point, that you raised, so you can make it appear I’m not refocusing?

There is no sharing in these type discussions. I provide explanations and you reject them, without a documented authority.

You have provided no explanation of how to explain away the obvious contradiction here. Please provide an authoritative answer from your Church that answers this question.

Whether you agree, or not, an answer was provided. There is no honesty in repeating ‘you won’t address it’. I do not recognize your interpretation as correct and cannot be held to only that interpretation. I can see how you ‘might’ arrive at your interpretation, yet I still find it in error.

So when Jesus said “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water,” He also secretly added “or unless someone really, really wants to be baptized”? As Atemi has pointed out, none of the Church Fathers that you love to appeal to understood it that way. The ECF’s and RCC both teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

I take Jesus very seriously and find no contradictions in His teachings, even semantic ‘possibilities’ only raised for the purposes of debate, or more accurately attempting to show you correct those Catholics.

As do I. However, the contradiction still stands if you maintain your flawed interpretation of John 3:5.

I have not said ‘well, the Church teaches it so I believe it’. Talk about dishonesty in a discussion. Please show me where I stated such or explain why it’s necessary to use false statements.

Okay, I’ll give it to you that you never used those exact words. However, the following statements come pretty darn close

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.

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.

By you’re last ad homenim, it’s even easier to see what’s going on. I think I’ve seen this pattern before. Have you ever been banned from CAF.? npatrol:

What exactly is going on? Not yet, sir.

I would also refer you to Atemi’s string of posts above Atemi has managed to stay on topic far better than your or me

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have provided no explanation of how to explain away the obvious contradiction here. Please provide an authoritative answer from your Church that answers this question.

Again, according to your interpretation, which I do not agree with. So, for me there is no contradiction, much less obvious.

So when Jesus said “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water,” He also secretly added “or unless someone really, really wants to be baptized”? As Atemi has pointed out, none of the Church Fathers that you love to appeal to understood it that way. The ECF’s and RCC both teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

Do you hear the steady drum beating?

Even though you say you believe in Tradition, Catholic tradition is quite a bit older than the Calvinist tradition. Catholic tradition dates back to the Apostles. Calvinism was started by a man in the 1500s, ignoring many of the traditions. Which also brings questions to mind about what Calvin believed and what Calvinists today believe and why there is a difference? But let’s not go off topic.

As do I. However, the contradiction still stands if you maintain your flawed interpretation of John 3:5.

Boom,boom, boom goes the drum. By what authority is your private interpretation superior over the Church’s interpretation, which I agree with? Without proving an authority in a private interpretation, I say you cannot declare another interpretation as incorrect, or flawed as it pleases you. But that’s a ‘red herring’ which you can’t address or we’ll go off topic.

Okay, I’ll give it to you that you never used those exact words. However, the following statements come pretty darn close

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.

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.

See, if you can misinterpret what I say, isn’t there the possibility you can misinterpret the words in scriptures. The difference is, I am here to call you on your mistakes.

If you have issues with what scriptures say, I’d say dig deeper. Or do you take those examples as ‘contradictory’ or that may be Christ cannot function from His throne in heaven? Certainly not.

What exactly is going on? Not yet, sir.

We’ve seen these very similar arguments before. There are times someone is banned and comes back under another name. But, if that’s the case, it’ll catch up to the person circumventing a banning.

So, what do you hope to achieve at CAF?

So far, you say Catholicism is wrong simply because you say it is, or because you have an undocumented authority to pronounce other interpretations as incorrect, or ‘flawed’. You really should explain how it took 2000 years for someone to finally understand the correct interpretation, over the very Church that preserved it through the centuries or the reformers would not have had it at all. Even if it is off topic.

BTW, usually off topic means, we can’t explain that but we have a point that we have a problem with so we’re declaring Catholicism wrong.

 

[kepha1]

Yes.

What men said long after the Apostles about the necessity of water baptism does not match what the RCC teaches today.

Wrong. Read it again. The consensus of the Early Church Fathers (something you must ignore) supports baptism by water, desire, and blood. “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit;”
“the spirit” in this context refers to the desire of the heart. It’s the same teaching today.

Here are quotes from 13 fathers that disagree with you and your interpretation of Ambrose.

When we see that the “Catholic Church” of Ambrose’s day taught something vastly different than the “Catholic Church” of today, it is hard to get our hands around John 3:5.
What’s to get around? Where in scripture regarding baptism is water separated from spirit? Where in scripture is “spirit” used symbolically? I would challenge you or Rogare can get your hands around those two questions. But you dance around it becasue your man-made system unbiblically denies the sacramental principle. Grace flows through physical matter (i.e. bread, wine, oil, water)and scripture illustrates this repeatedly yet you deny it.

Many Catholics today may cite the testimony of the church fathers regarding this verse, but then again, that testimony actually opens a bigger can of worms than expected.

And you have been corrected many times about your abuse of Church Father quotes. You and Rogare cherry pick and make a straw man. If you understood what the consensus of the Fathers taught you wouldn’t be Protestant. Instead, you glean snippets from anti-Catholic web sites and come in here thinking you have an argument.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wrong. Read it again. The consensus of the Early Church Fathers (something you must ignore) supports baptism by water, desire, and blood. “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit;”
“the spirit” in this context refers to the desire of the heart. It’s the same teaching today.

Here are quotes from 13 fathers that disagree with you and your interpretation of Ambrose.

When we see that the “Catholic Church” of Ambrose’s day taught something vastly different than the “Catholic Church” of today, it is hard to get our hands around John 3:5.
What’s to get around? Where in scripture regarding baptism is water separated from spirit? Where in scripture is “spirit” used symbolically? I would challenge you or Rogare can get your hands around those two questions. But you dance around it becasue your man-made system unbiblically denies the sacramental principle. Grace flows through physical matter (i.e. bread, wine, oil, water)and scripture illustrates this repeatedly yet you deny it.
And you have been corrected many times about your abuse of Church Father quotes. You and Rogare cherry pick and make a straw man. If you understood what the consensus of the Fathers taught you wouldn’t be Protestant. Instead, you glean snippets from anti-Catholic web sites and come in here thinking you have an argument.

:clapping:

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Rogare, drywall, Atemi,

Is your interpretation infallible? Can I rely on its being absolutely true? Should I stake my eternal life on it? Isn’t its basis the same as the thousands of other conflicting and competing interpretations on any given subject out there in Protestantland – your personal opinion (or John Calvin’s) about what the Bible means?

Jim Dandy

 

[kepha1]

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.

Baptism is DEFINED in the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus. Jesus uses the term at least 7 times in the New Testament

1. Christian baptism had not yet been initiated so Nicodemus couldn’t possibly know that Jesus was referring to baptism.

John the Baptist was baptizing lots of people making their path straight, and Jesus was baptized long before Nichodemus shows up. But wther or not baptism was initiated is irrelevant to what Jesus was teaching. Jesus doesn’t need an initiation of a sacrament to teach on it. That’s as backwards as you can get.

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.

Then why separate the two?

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.

Titus 3:5: “[H]e saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,”

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 two passages are almost exactly parallel:

Titus: “saved”

John: “enter the kingdom of God”

• Titus: “washing of regeneration”
  John: “born of water”

Titus: “renewal in the Holy Spirit”
John: “born of . . . the Spirit”

con’t on next page

 

[kepha1]

What is “washing” in one verse (with two other common elements) is “water” in the other. Thus, baptism is tied to salvation, in accord with the other verses above. 1 Corinthians 6:11 is also similar to Titus 3:5 and John 3:5: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

*The “justified” is the parallel of “kingdom of God” and “saved” in Titus 3:5 and John 3:5; “washed” goes along with “washing of regeneration” and “born of water,” and all this was done by the Spirit. Now it is a striking threefold parallelism. Furthermore, it is notable that baptism, justification, and sanctification are all mentioned together. This cross-referencing supports the argument that both baptism and regeneration are the subject matter of John 3:5. *

How, then, does Calvin interpret Titus 3:5? He plays word games, and engages in blatant eisegesis regarding that passage and also 1 Peter 3:21:
*The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument . . . [W]e are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). *

Peter also says that “baptism also doth now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.
(Institutes, IV, 15, 1-2)
Whereas in dealing with John 3:5, Calvin allegorized the water, here he interprets the “washing” of Titus 3:5 as indeed referring to baptism (cf. Institutes, IV, 15, 5 – which only strengthens the analogies made above), but then he proceeds arbitrarily to change the function of baptism in relation to regeneration, claiming it merely follows the latter (as a sign of something already accomplished on other grounds) and does not cause it.

This theory is neat and tidy, but can it be deduced from the biblical text? If we examine just the texts mentioned in this section, Calvin’s conclusion simply does not follow. It is a forced, strained interpretation. The text of Titus reads, “he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration.” For Calvin’s theory to work, the RCV (Revised Calvin Version) would have to read: “The washing of regeneration is a sign and seal that he has saved us.” The two thoughts are completely different. Calvin’s logic is as absurd as the following analogy, based on the sentence structure and logic of Titus 3:5:

• Text: He saved me by the throwing of a lifejacket.

Interpretation: But one cannot be saved by the throwing of a life jacket, because life jacket is only a sign and symbol that one has been saved. One is already saved from drowning, and then the life jacket is thrown out to show the world that the rescuing has already occurred.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The text clearly states a particular application of the general proposition, “X was caused by Y” (or, “Y caused X” – which is the same logical proposition). The chain of causation flows from Y (baptism) to X (salvation); one cannot simply deny this (if words have any meaning); the logic and the grammatical structure of the sentence do not allow it. Calvin might better have stuck to his method of making water or washing strictly metaphorical. Once he admitted that these verses do indeed refer to baptism, he predestined himself to logical confusion and exegetical chaos.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/08/biblical-evidence-for-baptismal.html

 

[kepha1]

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?

Jesus does not use the term “heaven”, he uses “kingdom of God”.

"…the phrase kingdom of God can be used in more than one sense.

In the most general sense, the kingdom of God would seem to be everything under God’s sovereignty, which is all of reality. However, you can’t get away from the kingdom of God in this sense, so most folks mean something more particular when they use the phrase.

In a more restricted sense, one might say that the kingdom of God comprises those things in which God is specially active—i.e., is asserting his sovereignty. In this case, since it requires a miracle every time the Eucharist is celebrated, one would say that the Mass involves the kingdom of God in a special way.

Scripture speaks of the kingdom of God as if it is present in the Person of Christ, and since Christ is present in the Eucharist, the kingdom of God is present in the Mass in that way.

Scripture also speaks of the kingdom of God as if it is an age of history that is inaugurated with Christ. We are living in that age now, the Mass being one of its characteristic features.

Scripture also speaks of the kingdom of God as if it is a future age that begins with the Second Coming of Christ. In this case, since the Eucharist involves a making-present of Christ in anticipation of the Second Coming, it would seem that there is a sense in which the future kingdom of God is made present in the Eucharist."
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207qq.asp

As for the salvation of the unbaptized, God’s justice is above private interpretation of a few bible verses. Only a mean angry Nordic sky god would create people just to send them to hell. “For God so loved the world…”, (John 3:16) not just Christians.

Remember that Jesus said from the cross, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34). What did his sacrifice on the cross have to do with those who mocked him, spit at him, and crucified him? In other words, what did it have to do with those for whom he was asking forgiveness from God the Father? The answer is: everything. For some, it was through ignorance that they crucified him, and invincible ignorance can diminish one’s culpability for evil done—even the crucifixion of our Savior. They still could be saved, or Jesus’ plea for their forgiveness to the Father would make no sense. Whoever enters heaven will do so only because of Christ and his sacrificial work on the cross. Some people may enter heaven having never heard of Christ, but it will be because of him that they enter.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Redemption

There is no tension.

 

[Rogare]

Baptism is DEFINED in the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus.

Really?! That is begging the question, Kepha1. The task here is to demonstrate Scripturally that baptism is being defined here. You are assuming the very conclusion that is in question.

John the Baptist was baptizing lots of people making their path straight, and Jesus was baptized long before Nichodemus shows up. But wther or not baptism was initiated is irrelevant to what Jesus was teaching. Jesus doesn’t need an initiation of a sacrament to teach on it. That’s as backwards as you can get.

 

[Rogare]

As for the salvation of the unbaptized, God’s justice is above private interpretation of a few bible verses. Only a mean angry Nordic sky god would create people just to send them to hell. “For God so loved the world…”, (John 3:16) not just Christians.

Who ever suggested that God created people just to send them to hell? Is it not a Biblical teaching that there are those that will go to hell? Isn’t God an “angry Nordic sky god” for allowing those people to be born since he knew they would end up in hell? In fact, Scripture does teach that people are created that will go to hell. They go to hell because they reject God, but God has reason for creating them:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—(Romans 9:22-23)

So in essence, you are correct, God does not create people just to send them to hell. However, He does create people that will go to hell and they are sent to hell to glorify God.

There is no tension.

(Edited)

 

[kepha1]

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.’
Rogare, what does one do with this “water” that Jesus speaks of? If Jesus is speaking about metaphorical water, and a symbolic “spirit”, then Jesus is mixing metaphors with symbols. Jesus never babbles incoherently. You cannot prove by scripture that “spirit” is symbolic or metaphorical because nowhere in scripture is spirit used that way. Jesus is teaching on baptism with real wet water with a real Spirit to convey real grace in John 3:5 and you have painted yourself into a corner. Baptism is a sacrament, to you it’s an ordinance. Sacramentalism flows from the Incarnation principle.

There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life. more at catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=560

 

[kepha1]

Who ever suggested that God created people just to send them to hell? Is it not a Biblical teaching that there are those that will go to hell?

Yes, but nowhere in scripture does God pre-ordain anyone to hell. I don’t know about your Bible, but mine says it is God’s desire that all men might be saved.

Isn’t God an “angry Nordic sky god” for allowing those people to be born since he knew they would end up in hell?

Yes, according to John Calvin.

In fact, Scripture does teach that people are created that will go to hell. They go to hell because they reject God, but God has reason for creating them:

Double predestination is a heresy and off topic. Open a new thread.

So in essence, you are correct, God does not create people just to send them to hell. However, He does create people that will go to hell and they are sent to hell to glorify God.

How is God glorified by having people in hell when he wishes that all men might be saved? (2 Tim. 2:3)

But you get to ignore the question because it’s off topic.

(Edited)

 

[kepha1]

Jesus is REFERING to baptism in John 5:8. Real “…water AND spirit…” No separation there. Just because the term “baptism” is not mentioned in those few verses does not mean that Jesus is teaching something other than baptism.

No doctrine hinges on one verse. Taken as a whole, the Bible teaches the necessity of baptism as salvific and regenerative, even if you eliminate all of John 5.

Rom 1:20-32
** **We have here a condemnation of the ‘reformation’ from the Scriptures themselves. The denial that God can be found through nature is central to the Protestant religions, which claim He can only be found in Scripture. Karl Barth would go so far as to say that trying to seek proof for God in Natural Theology is an act of idolatry.

When nature is seen as totally at odds with God and only a distraction away from God so that there are no natural goods but only he formal imputation of ‘goodness’ by the mere caprice of God, men will commit unnatural vices while screaming to Heaven Luther’s famous screed:

"Sin Strongly believe more strongly!
**
Calvin was man alienated from other people and from his own bodily nature. He believed all men were vile and deserved death and eternal damnation. He based his beliefs on his own experience of himself as a loathsome and depraved sinner. Meanwhile he rejected the Gospel as preserved in the teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church when those teachings disagreed with his personal preferences. He was excommunicated as a notorious heretic by the Church.

 

[david_friol_1]

1. Christian baptism had not yet been initiated so Nicodemus couldn’t possibly know that Jesus was referring to baptism

Jesus often spoke to the people in ways that were not easy for them to fully grasp what he was talking about. So this point is not really necessary.

 

[Atemi]

**Yes.

What men said long after the Apostles about the necessity of water baptism does not match what the RCC teaches today. **

Wrong. Read it again.

Sorry, but I have read it many times. Nothing has changed.

Ambrose’s position is clear.

"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.”

“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.”

The RCC today does not teach this.

The consensus of the Early Church Fathers (something you must ignore) supports baptism by water, desire, and blood. “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit;”

“the spirit” in this context refers to the desire of the heart. It’s the same teaching today.

“Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water”

**Many Catholics today may cite the testimony of the church fathers regarding this verse, but then again, that testimony actually opens a bigger can of worms than expected. **

And you have been corrected many times about your abuse of Church Father quotes.

If you consider posting what they actually say to be “abusing” them, then that is something you will need to work out.

I take them at their word. I do not need to pretend they really, really mean something other than what they actually said very clearly.

…

 

[pablope]

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

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.
**

.

Well, you said in another post that…“As a Protestant, I do not reject tradition.”

Well and good. Speaking of tradition…and speaking of 2Tim3:15, from the forums, I have discovered that protestants usually ignore v 14, which is your tradition.

The catholic tradition is to include v14…“You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,”

This verse speaks of the oral teaching and guidance one receives. So it is both the oral teaching and the knowing of the scriptures.

So which do you think " which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"-including v14 or excluding v14?

Holy Scripture IS all we need to obtain salvation according to Paul. That’s a dishonest interpretation of the verse.

Is then St. Paul teaching Scripture alone or not? And which is a dishonest interpretation?

Now speaking of baptism, the CC has always understood John 3:3 as speaking of sacrament of baptism, which was well being practiced according to how the apostles understood it from Jesus. And this was even before John’s gospel was written.

So, don’t you think if what was being practiced from Pentecost to John writing his gospel, was contrary to how Jesus instructed the Apostles, that John would have written a correction in his gospel?