"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Nathan_Wagar]

Let me restate the question. Does the salvific baptism of the Spirit take place when the believer believes, and then he baptizes symbolizing his salvation? or is it when he believes and then is baptized, and is saved at the moment of water baptism?

 

[geometer]

This thread has devolved. No one knows anything about baptism at all, except for what ever might be guessed by searching the bible.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Nope. it hasn’t devolved. I’m going to answer Ginger’s points, after I know exactly where she is coming from.

 

[geometer]

Nope. it hasn’t devolved. I’m going to answer Ginger’s points, after I know exactly where she is coming from.

Well, if you were baptized, did you recognize what it was then?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by SteveGC
Ed, I think one of Nathan’s contentions is that you are declaring two required baptisms here. The baptism of the Spirit upon belief. And the subsequent water baptism, which as you say is “to fulfill the act of righteousness”. Obviously you would say that the first baptism is required…are you saying the second one is NOT required? What if a person does not get water baptized after being baptized by the Spirit through their belief? If they are both required, then that’s two baptisms. I know you’ve addressed this in some form through other posts…but could you briefly summarize for me how these two required baptisms combine to form the ONE baptism Eph 4 declares exists? To me, it seems like a clever tap-dance to say that ONE baptism really means that two are combined into one. Perhaps that’s not what you’re saying. Perhaps you’re saying that the water baptism is not really required? Help

Hi Steve, it’s always good to hear from you. You present several questions here. I’ll try to respond in this manner. Heb 6:1-2, Paul states,” Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance -----, and of faith in God, v 2 instructions about baptisms. BAPTISMS? ( why plural if there’s only one per Eph 4:5?) and laying on of hands ( Catholic bible commentary says this means the infusion of the Holy Spirit), resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment." PLEASE NOTE, Paul speaks of more than ONE baptism. If the Holy Spirit, according to the Catholic bible is infused by the laying of the hands, then what happened to the Holy Spirit that you claim we receive at water baptism?

In 1 Cor. 12, it speaks about the various gifts of the Spirit, v 11,“All these are the work of ONE and the same Spirit.” That’s exactly what Eph 4:5 ONE baptism means, Unity of the Body in Christ by ONE Holy Sprit). But yes! We believe in TWO baptisms, exactly like Paul believes in baptisms (plural) We are baptized into Christ by belief Eph 1:13 and sealed until the day of redemption, and we are baptized in water for repentance as John states in Mat 3:11.

To better explain this according to Catholic theology. You get baptized in water. That’s one baptism. Then you get baptized in the Holy Spirit at Confirmation, That’s two baptisms Post 360 verifies what I’m saying here, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” to a Catholic is Confirmation. Why bother with confirmation, if the Holy Spirit is infused at water baptism? I hope this helps you better understand what Eph 4:5 really means by One Baptism. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed. I don’t want to get this too far away, or Ginger probably won’t even see my post to her, but you are confusing terms again. Baptism as we are speaking of it is by it’s nature a salvific baptism, and is separate from the Holy Spirit pouring out in the Pentecostal sense. Baptism means different things in different contexts. The very fact that Ephesians 4 says “one baptism” means they are referring to salvific baptism, regardless of whether it is water or the Spirit, on that we can agree. The very fact that the Holy Spirit comes down many times is evidence against the fact that the baptism spoken of in Ephesians is anything but salfivic.

Instructions about “baptisms” makes perfect sense when we consider that there was Jewish baptism, John’s baptism, the apostles’ baptism; and instruction was needed on this fact. This is borne out by the fact that Paul had to reinstruct Apollos about the difference between John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism.

And asking what is the point of confirmation if we already have baptism infused is ingoring Catholic theology that God continually dispenses grace. The fact remains that Ginger’s view on this is not the same as yours, however, so I can’t really discuss this indepth with you, or you both will start jumping in on the other’s posts, and no progress is made whatsoever.

 

[DerekD]

Let me restate the question. Does the salvific baptism of the Spirit take place when the believer believes, and then he baptizes symbolizing his salvation? or is it when he believes and then is baptized, and is saved at the moment of water baptism?

You are saved at the moment you truly believe in the Son of God, baptized by the holy spirit, which is a promise of Jesus. The water baptism is a command to be followed in obedience to the Lord and and the outward identification with the Lord in His death burial and reserection. For many it is the first act of disobedience for being saved, then not obeying the command. unless the profession of believe was not sincere or by ignorance, doesn’t know the command.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Sorry, but I’m asking Ginger. I have to stay with one poster at a time, and me and her are on a roll.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Ed. I don’t want to get this too far away, or Ginger probably won’t even see my post to her, but you are confusing terms again. Baptism as we are speaking of it is by it’s nature a salvific baptism, and is separate from the Holy Spirit pouring out in the Pentecostal sense. Baptism means different things in different contexts. The very fact that Ephesians 4 says “one baptism” means they are referring to salvific baptism, regardless of whether it is water or the Spirit, on that we can agree. The very fact that the Holy Spirit comes down many times is evidence against the fact that the baptism spoken of in Ephesians is anything but salfivic.

Instructions about “baptisms” makes perfect sense when we consider that there was Jewish baptism, John’s baptism, the apostles’ baptism; and instruction was needed on this fact. This is borne out by the fact that Paul had to reinstruct Apollos about the difference between John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism.

And asking what is the point of confirmation if we already have baptism infused is ingoring Catholic theology that God continually dispenses grace. The fact remains that Ginger’s view on this is not the same as yours, however, so I can’t really discuss this indepth with you, or you both will start jumping in on the other’s posts, and no progress is made whatsoever

Nathan, on post 362 you made it clear to me that I’m not to post to you anymore. On my reponse to you on post 363 I agreed to honor request. I believe we should leave it at that. What you are posting here, I addressed it to Steve. I still consider you as my brother in Christ and friend. God Bless! ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted byDerekD
You are saved at the moment you truly believe in the Son of God, baptized by the holy spirit, which is a promise of Jesus. The water baptism is a command to be followed in obedience to the Lord and and the outward identification with the Lord in His death burial and reserection. For many it is the first act of disobedience for being saved, then not obeying the command. unless the profession of believe was not sincere or by ignorance, doesn’t know the command

Hi Derek, what you state here is 100% correct. I say; AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! ED O.

 

[SteveGC]

You are saved at the moment you truly believe in the Son of God, baptized by the holy spirit

please define the “moment you truly believe”, and how that concept is taught to a seeker in such a way that they will have no doubt regarding the precise moment that they have been baptized by the Spirit.

Thanks.

 

[SteveGC]

Laying on of hands is not baptism. It is the passing of Spiritual gifts to witness and evangelize. These gifts are no longer passed on since the last Apostle passed on.

I’ve always found this last (underlined) comment strange…I wonder why some acknowledge that the apostles could pass on gifts to witness and evangelize, but deny that they could pass on the ability to pass it further on. Why is it so hard to fathom that a spiritual gift could be a perpetual capacity to pass on gifts?

There is one Baptism which has more than one part.

But aren’t the other parts you are referring to, other baptisms? IOW, is this the same as saying “there is one Baptism which has more the one Baptism”?

sorry to interrupt your discourse with Nathan. I was simply curious about some of your comments here.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Don’t worry I intend to answer all her objections. Ginger, I will repost below so that you don’t have to go searching:

Let me restate the question. Does the salvific baptism of the Spirit take place when the believer believes, and then he baptizes symbolizing his salvation? or is it when he believes and then is baptized, and is saved at the moment of water baptism?

 

[crowcounty]

i thought pope damascus added the book of john to the bible wasnt he a catholic?

 

[Ginger2]

D
Let me restate the question. Does the salvific baptism of the Spirit take place when the believer believes, and then he baptizes symbolizing his salvation? or is it when he believes and then is baptized, and is saved at the moment of water baptism?

Neither. Your question is flawed. Besides, these points have already been addressed.

I’m beginning to think you are trying to avoid responding to my post by asking many questions until you catch me in a slip or typo or questionable wording or any other means to find fault.

There is no reason for you to continue asking me questions, when you have not responded to my post.

Ginger

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Sorry Ginger, it was supposed to be just a couple and the thread got carried away. I already have all your points responded to and written down, you should know me better than that. The point is to get what you believe explicitly in writing so there is no backtracking. Now I am really curious though. When are you saved? does the salvific baptism of the Holy Spirit happen at the moment of belief or the moment of water baptism? I fail to see how that question is flawed, your whole theology should theoretically stand on the moment of belief, but it seems not to with you, hence further clarification is needed.

 

[crowcounty]

i was saved i am being saved and by gods grace i will continue to be saved.

this is what is up with salvation"" to save" is not "saved "until you are in full communion with god and by full communion i mean in heaven with .jesus, baptism washes away your sin but repentence and charity keep it that way.

Im not sure what difference that makes in john three unless you have an inappropriate translation such as NIV?

 

[Ginger2]

Does the salvific baptism of the Spirit take place when the believer believes, and then he baptizes symbolizing his salvation? …
?

Your question is flawed, because I do not consider the act of Baptism symbolic.

… or is it when he believes and then is baptized, and is saved at the moment of water baptism?

Your question is flawed further because I do not believe we are saved by water, but the blood of Christ.

I have already shown that the Holy Spirit can be given before or after a water ritual is performed. And that water does not “infuse” the Holy Spirit.

I hope that helps, but it is not necessary for you to go thru all this to respond to my post.

Ginger

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Actually, it is necessary Ginger. I don’t think you realize how frustrating it is debating multiple proetstants on a forum, each one objecting to your arguments for different reasons. I don’t want to misrepresent you, and I want us to understand where each other is coming from. Right now, it seems like you are reluctant to state what you actually believe. Every Protestant I know of believes in a “moment” of salvation. The position you are taking is contradictory, in essence it seems to be saying that Salvation can come “whenever,” with no precise moment of time. This is against every single Protestant doctrine I know, and makes it impossible to post against you, because then you will be able to “decide” what each verse means based on what you want it to mean, rather than what your clear-cut theology dictates. With Ed, I at least know exactly where he stands. Salvation, and the Holy Spirit, come at the moment of belief in Christ. With you, nobody seems to know. It could be at baptism, it could be before baptism, it could be after. This is ridiculous and has DIRECT bearing on how I answer you. People that don’t have a clear-cut knowledge of their own theology are impossible to debate because they don’t have to follow any rules, it’s like a bad game of “calvin-ball.” Knowing what you believe and what I believe keeps everybody honest. I believe that you need to believe, which makes the water baptism effectual for infusing the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is another outpouring of the Spirit for the purposes of my ministry as a Catholic. There, was that so hard? What is your belief Ginger.

 

[Ginger2]

… Right now, it seems like you are reluctant to state what you actually believe. Every Protestant I know of believes in a “moment” of salvation. The position you are taking is contradictory, in essence it seems to be saying that Salvation can come “whenever,” with no precise moment of time…

In-other-words, you want me to contradict Scriptures so you can dispute what I say.

You gave me two wrong options to choose from to answer your question.

I have stated very clearly what I believe and used Scripture to support my statements. Why don’t you simply tell me what part you don’t understand?
**
You said: **1. I think the majority of “speaking in tongues” is suspect, honestly. Two different words for “tongues” was used in Acts and Corinthians. One implies speech, the other “babbling.”
**I asked: **What two words?