"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Nathan_Wagar]

Geometer. I’m not trying to ignore you, but your ideas are so vastly different than Ed’s that I have to focus on him, and perhaps discuss this with you later?

 

[panevino]

Hi Ed, please bear with me I’m a novice , but did want to respond.

Hi panevino, In John 3:5 “man born of water” refers to man’s physical birth. That’s why Jesus in v 6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh (physical birth) but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Just because the word water is mentioned there does not mean baptism. Nathan claims that we are saved, our sins are forgiven and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism. That can’t be true and here’s why,

I still can’t get past your interpretation of this verse. Where your divide “born of water and spirit” as not the one baptism revealed through Jesus but with two seperate events in life.(ie born of water = birth from womb/fleshAs a child & born of spirit = when belief in god is declared/realized)

I understand that your suggestion that " born of water…" refers to birth from a human ( is based on several verses where water is used to describe people)

however these versus tend to be obscure and describe a mass of people and army (from memory) rather than a direct reference to a woman or human life.

Your interpretation of water in this verse avoids the far more convincing parallels of water being life giving and used in the superseded baptism of John ,etc…

Got more to query but it’s late

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Fair enough Ed. He was saved but he wasn’t forgiven of his sins. That makes plenty of sense, right? You’re caught,

Hi Nathan, don’t get too happy yet because I intend to run all over you! — Here’s why! — Did Ananias change the criteria to have sins forgiven by water baptism? NO! NO! NO!-----There are only TWO rules that God gives us for the forgives sins and water baptism is NOT included among them… RULE #1 per Leviticus 17:11, Man dies because of sins. But thank God in the O.T., He (God) allowed animals to die for man’s sins. In the N.T., Jesus died for man’s sins. RULE #2 also per Lev 17:11 Blood is the life of every creature. God gave us ONLY BLOOD to forgive sins, which gives new life. In the O.T., animal’s blood, In the N.T., Jesus in Mat 28:26 continues to make it very clear, “This is my BLOOD of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” In plain English, When we believe in Jesus, He supplied RULE #1 and died in our place and RULE #2 His BLOOD gives us new life by forgiving our sins. SOMETHING-- WATER-- BAPTISM – CANNOT-- DO.

Ed, because even if he received the Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him (which I have demonstrated he did not), that wouldn’t make sense, because he should have ALREADY received it upon believing. By your logic, he received the Holy Spirit upon believing, but apparently still didn’t have his sins forgiven? I mean come on Ed.

From where did you get the idea that you had demonstrated that Paul did NOT receive the Holy Spirit until he got baptized. Your imagination is running wild again! Here’s what Ananias said in Acts 9:17, Jesus, “has sent me so that you may see again and be FILLED with the Holy Spirit”. When Ananias laid hands on Saul/Paul, he was healed and was FILLED with the Holy Spirit. Here’s my proof: Acts 8; 12 these people were water baptized but they weren’t FILLED with the Holy Spirit until v16 Peter and John laid hands on them. Acts 19:2-6, these people were water baptized but were not FILLED with the Holy Spirit until Paul laid hands on them. Now you show me at least just ONE Scripture that indicates people were FILLED with the Holy Spirit by water baptism. THERE — AREN’T — ANY!.

As for the Ephesians comment, I didn’t insert “water baptism” into there. I merely said we both agree that the “one baptism” referred to in Ephesians is salvific, whatever the baptism it refers to. What inserts the “water baptism” into the context quite effectively is Peter comparing it to water and spirit, and Saul not being saved until he was baptized, and Jesus mentioning water and the Spirit. This whole matrix of Scripture passages is interconnected, Ed. It’s similar to inferring the doctrine of the trinity, even though the words “trinity” are found nowhere. This is why your argument of “where is that in scripture” is so bankrupt, because it’s all over the place, and I am patiently showing you. You tend to ignore the hard arguments.

You spout many words here but much to what you think and believe without Scripture proof!

You want to say Paul was saved when he believed upon hearing the gospel from Jesus. That’s fine Ed, but I guess that means that somehow he was saved without having his sins forgiven, because that doesn’t happen until later.

First of all, water baptism does NOT forgives sins. It’s not the God given criteria to forgive sins.---- Now this is what happens when a person believes in Jesus’ gospel of our SALVATION. We believe that He died in our place, His BLOOD forgives our sins and It gives us new eternal life, (that’s the ONLY criteria that God demands for the forgiveness of sins.) To confirm our salvation per Rom10;9-10, We must also believe that He is our Lord, and He was raised from the dead. THAT’S —THE — GOSPEL— OF — OUR —SALVATION!

how do you explain this? You can’t Ed, because it’s the one domino that destroys your very unsystematic theology

I went through great lenghts to explain it all above. Not by what makes sense, like you say, but by showing proof by Scripture.

Rev.1:5, WE – ARE – FREED – FROM — OUR — SINS — BY — HIS — BLOOD. And the Bible ends.ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
You want to know something else funny, Ed? I have a Protestant Apologetics Bible as well. Extensive apologetics notes on almost a verse-by-verse basis. Totally against Catholic beliefs. Guess what it has to say about this passage regarding Saul and Ananias? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Skips right over it, in fact. Similar to what you are doing. I’d love to hear your argument on this.

Hi Nathan, we are to get our answers from Scriptures not from the Protestant Apologetics Bible

Just so you know, I can give you links to several intelligent Protestant web pages that are giving the exact same arguments I am about why baptism saves you, but I guess they are wrong too? I already know what you’re going to do. You’re going to pick a few sentences out of my posts and respond to them, without answering my main question: Why was Paul “saved” upon believing, but his sins weren’t forgiven? So what does “saved” mean to you, Ed

As I say above, the Bible has all the answers we need. I don’t need intelligent Protestant web sites. — Here’s my proof, John 16:13, states, “Howbeit when HE, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into all truth.” The HE that’s mentioned here is " GOD ". The third person of the Trinity. That’s a better source than any Protestant/Catholic web sites. ED O.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hi Nathan, we are to get our answers from Scriptures not from the Protestant Apologetics Bible

As I say above, the Bible has all the answers we need. I don’t need intelligent Protestant web sites. — Here’s my proof, John 16:13, states, “Howbeit when HE, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into all truth.” The HE that’s mentioned here is " GOD ". The third person of the Trinity. That’s a better source than any Protestant/Catholic web sites. ED O.

I hate this thread: Fatuous, self-indulgent drivel. Here’s yet another example “God. The third person of the Trinity.”!!!
Opening some Catholics to well deserved ridicule. Stop it. Is it it your ambition to be jester?
Hopefully God has blessed you with a couple of brain cells. Rub them together, get them to spark, become a Light unto the world. God waits in anticipation of greatness.

 

[zach_dunn]

Ed O, will you please respond to this post? Thank you.

 

[SteveGC]

Ed…

please interpret Acts 22:16.

why do we see Paul’s sins being washed away here, but not earlier when he believed? Were they washed away when he believed? If so, why does Acts 22:16, which comes chronologically later after his belief, talk about him getting his sins washed away?

thanks…(this is what I think Nathan is trying to get you to elaborate on…I think).

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Zach Dunn
You admit that there is a baptism of water AND a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately for you, the Bible explicitly states that there is only ONE baptism [Eph 4:5]. But how is this possible?! Well, Jesus believes they are one [Jn 3:5] and that that one baptism is necessary to be saved. The imposition of hands is for Confirmation, NOT baptism; Hebrews 6:2 separates these two because they are different.

Hi Zach, Unfortunately for you that I agree with Jesus that there are two Baptisms Acts 1:5 ---- John 3:5 says, "man born of water’ (physical birth) and the Spirit then in v6 Jesus refers back to v5 by saying, Flesh gives birth to flesh ( physical birth) and the Spirit gives birth to spirit. If the “born of water” means baptism, Why didn’t Jesus then say so? And why in v6 Jesus refers back to v5 and says nothing at all about baptism but refers to Flesh (physical birth) and spirit?? -----Now show me the verse in Scripture that indicates Confirmation by the laying of hands? Also when the laying of hands took place on those people in the Bible, they spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit. That’s the baptism to receive the Holy Spirit. Did you or anyone that was confirmed with you ever speak in tongues? I’ll answer the rest of what you wrote when you answer what I say here. Do we have a deal? ED O.

 

[zach_dunn]

I’ll answer the rest of what you wrote when you answer what I say here. Do we have a deal? ED O.

Yup.

Hi Zach, Unfortunately for you that I agree with Jesus that there are two Baptisms Acts 1:5

Well, you directly contradict Scripture then:

Ephesians 4:5
“5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Notice how it does not say “one baptism of water” or “one baptism of the spirit.” It simply says “one baptism.” John’s baptism was merely a precursor of Christ’s baptism [Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33] which is with water and the Spirit [Jn 3:5]. Have you been baptized twice?

John 3:5 says, "man born of water’ (physical birth) and the Spirit then in v6 Jesus refers back to v5 by saying, Flesh gives birth to flesh ( physical birth) and the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Woa, you completely read a meaning into the text.

John 3:5-6
“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. 6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.”

When Jesus says “that which is born of the flesh, is flesh” he is distinguishing baptism from physical birth. If the second part (“flesh is flesh”) refers to physical birth, why wouldn’t he have said, in verse five, “unless a man be born again of flesh and the Holy Ghost . . . ?” He is clearly distinguishing born of water and being physically born. When you take into consideration verses such as 1 Cor 6:11, do you think Paul is saying we are justified and sanctified when we are born? That’s clearly not the case because of original sin. Also take into account verses like Eph 5:26 and Tit 3:5.

When you think about it, saying that being born of water is equal to physical birth is rather foolish. Of course you have to be born to be saved, if you don’t exist you cannot be saved. Your mistake is in thinking that verse five is referring to two different baptisms, which it is not.

If the “born of water” means baptism, Why didn’t Jesus then say so? And why in v6 Jesus refers back to v5 and says nothing at all about baptism but refers to Flesh (physical birth) and spirit??

As I showed you, Jesus did not “refer back to verse 5” in verse six, He distinguished baptism from physical birth. He did say so, being born of water is baptism. Tell me why Jesus and His disciples went on a baptizing ministry right after this discourse if He was not talking about baptism? Why would Christ demand that all Christians be baptized if it was unimportant? How many things do you think Christ told us to do that are not necessary for salvation?

Now show me the verse in Scripture that indicates Confirmation by the laying of hands? Also when the laying of hands took place on those people in the Bible, they spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit. That’s the baptism to receive the Holy Spirit.

Easy:

The Acts of the Apostles 8:14-17
“14 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. 15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”

This passage is crucial for many reasons -

• First, we see that the people receiving the imposition of hands have already been baptized, that means that this is not a second baptism because there is only one baptism [Eph 4:5].
• Second, we see that the Holy Spirit is conferred by the imposition of hands.
• And third, we see that there is not tongue speaking in this episode.

The Acts of the Apostles 19:6
“6 And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”

It is true that the people spoke in tongues after this, but we know from the previous citation that this does not happen every time. It didn’t happen at Paul’s Confirmation either. Still we see that this sacrament is conferred by the imposition of hands. ALSO, verse 5 (“Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”) indicates that these people had already been baptized with the one baptism [Eph 4:5] of Christ. Your argument against Confirmation simply falls apart.

Then there is this doozy:

Hebrews 6:2
“1 Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”

Here baptism and confirmation (the imposition of hands) are explicitly distinguished, they are not the same. PLUS, confirmation is part of the elementary doctrines of Christianity which is in the order of salvation as it would seem.

← continued in next post →

 

[zach_dunn]

← continued from post 566 →

Did you or anyone that was confirmed with you ever speak in tongues?

Not when I was confirmed, no. Then again I was only eight and don’t remember it; I fell asleep, actually. The bishop was very dull p). That doesn’t mean it’s never happened, because I’m sure it has happened plenty of times. I know it happened at least once in Acts 19:6. Tell me, did you start to speak in tongues at your “second baptism?”

Now you can answer the rest of my earlier post.

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi panevino, In John 3:5 “man born of water” refers to man’s physical birth. That’s why Jesus in v 6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh (physical birth) but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Just because the word water is mentioned there does not mean baptism. Nathan claims that we are saved, our sins are forgiven and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism. That can’t be true and here’s why.

Just because the word water is mentioned there does not mean physical birth. That’s why Jesus clarified in the next verse that physical is a fleshy affair, not an affair of water or Spirit.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Ed…

please interpret Acts 22:16.

why do we see Paul’s sins being washed away here, but not earlier when he believed? Were they washed away when he believed? If so, why does Acts 22:16, which comes chronologically later after his belief, talk about him getting his sins washed away?

thanks…(this is what I think Nathan is trying to get you to elaborate on…I think

Hi Steve, to explain it as simply as I can, Ehp 1:3 tells us upon the believing of the truth, the gospel of our salavation, which is that Jesus died in our place and atoned for our sins, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and are saved. (This is where Paul is before he got baptized) Mat 3:11 John says his baptism is of repentance. Repentance means confessing our sins, asking God for forgiveness and starting a new life, a pledge of a good conscience toward God 1 Pet 3:21. In essense washing our past and sins away. He had much to confess, to clear his conscience, he persecuted many people.

This is what Paul states in Gal 1:15."But when God, who set me apart from BIRTH and called me by HIs grace, was pleased v16 to reveal His Son IN ME so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles. You see! Paul was saved before he got baptized which Narhan tries to make me believe that Paul received the Holy Spirit at baptism which is not true. In fact Paul was Filled with the Holy Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him because we know that Paul spoke in tongues and that does not come about by water baptism. ED O…

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi Steve, to explain it as simply as I can, Ehp 1:3 tells us upon the believing of the truth, the gospel of our salavation, which is that Jesus died in our place and atoned for our sins, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and are saved.

Ephesians 1:3
“3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”

This is not anything close to what you said, where do you get your ideas from? They’re obviously not from Scripture.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hi Steve, to explain it as simply as I can, Ehp 1:3 tells us upon the believing of the truth, the gospel of our salavation…

“The Gospel of our salavation” (spelt wrong)
In time for Christmas?
No doubt filled with tasty recipes to try.

I’ll be looking in my Bible for that one!!

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Zach Dunn

Now you can answer the rest of my earlier post

Zach what you are posting has been trashed and re-trashed over and over again on this thread. I suggest that you go back to post #1 and work your way forward and you’ll find everything that you want to know. I can assure you! ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Kevin Wilcox
QUOTE=EdOsiecki;5885043]Hi Steve, to explain it as simply as I can, Ehp 1:3 tells us upon the believing of the truth, the gospel of our salavation…

“The Gospel of our salavation” (spelt wrong)
In time for Christmas?
No doubt filled with tasty recipes to try.

I’ll be looking in my Bible for that one!!:thumbsup

Go ahead I’ll wait! “spelt wrong” ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Zach Dunn
B]Ephesians 1:3

“3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”

This is not anything close to what you said, where do you get your ideas from? They’re obviously not from Scripture You are correct and thank you for bringing it to my attention, I made a mistake it should be Eph 1:13 and not Eph 1:3 ED O.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

You are correct and thank you for bringing it to my attention, I made a mistake it should be Eph 1:13 and not Eph 1:3 ED O.

And look at the next verse:
“As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity” (Eph 1:4)

WEIGHTY words! You said you would weight!

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach what you are posting has been trashed and re-trashed over and over again on this thread. I suggest that you go back to post #1 and work your way forward and you’ll find everything that you want to know. I can assure you! ED O.

Going back on your word?

I’ll answer the rest of what you wrote when you answer what I say here. Do we have a deal? ED O.

I responded “yes” to your deal, now you have an obligation to fulfill your end of the bargain. I addressed what you said in your post so now it’s time for you to go through the rest of my earlier post. If you don’t have an answer that’s fine, just don’t try to get out of the deal we made. If you’re trying to become somewhat of a respected Protestant poster here, I would suggest following through on your “deals,” at least through the first 500 posts.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Steve, to explain it as simply as I can, Ehp 1:3 tells us upon the believing of the truth, the gospel of our salavation, which is that Jesus died in our place and atoned for our sins, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and are saved. (This is where Paul is before he got baptized) Mat 3:11 John says his baptism is of repentance. Repentance means confessing our sins, asking God for forgiveness and starting a new life, a pledge of a good conscience toward God 1 Pet 3:21. In essense washing our past and sins away. He had much to confess, to clear his conscience, he persecuted many people.

This is what Paul states in Gal 1:15."But when God, who set me apart from BIRTH and called me by HIs grace, was pleased v16 to reveal His Son IN ME so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles. You see! Paul was saved before he got baptized which Narhan tries to make me believe that Paul received the Holy Spirit at baptism which is not true. In fact Paul was Filled with the Holy Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him because we know that Paul spoke in tongues and that does not come about by water baptism. ED O…

Just so I’m clear on this, from your understanding that is…

Under your theology…

Paul’s sins were NOT forgiven when he was originally saved (through belief)? So, when a person is saved, their sins are not forgiven at that moment?