"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[EdOsiecki]

It’s hard to effectively debate Nathan because, he’ll make a statement such as below but has no Scripture support,

Nathan’s response to me posted on 552
Response: That’s right Ed. John only baptized with water. Then when Jesus gets baptized, something special happens. He turns it into a sacrament with the presence of the Spirit.

That’s not so. Here’s what took place at Christ’s baptism Mat 3:16 “ As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on Him, v17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I Love; with him I am well pleased.” ---- PLEASE NOTE: after Jesus was already baptized and came OUT of the water, then The Spirit came down on Him. Mark 1:10 states exactly the same.

In John 1:29-33 makes a very interesting statement, v 29, The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! V30 This is the one I meant when I said, “A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ v 31 I myself did not know Him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.” v 32 Then John gave this testimony: “ I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and REMAIN on Him. V 33 I would not have known Him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and REMAIN is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.”---- PLEASE NOTE: Above it states that Jesus takes away the sins of the world , so how can Nathan claim that water baptism does too? Nowhere, in the above Scripture does it even give a hint that John’s water baptism turns into a sacrament with the presence of the Spirit. Repeatedly I asked Nathan show me the Scripture that supports the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, he tried to convince me that he did but finally on post 454 he admits there is none. That’s why it’s hard to honestly debate him. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

No Ed, I admit that you will not find the word infusion. I also explained how that is a bankrupt argument because you can’t find the Catholic defined terms “trinity” or “original sin,” yet you feel free to use them in your arguments. Basically you don’t even have an argument there. You chose to ignore that though. You also ignore that I demonstrated that Jesus’ baptism was not the same as John’s baptism. You could only show that he was not baptizing at the particular moment the pharisees found out. Nowhere does it say he NEVER baptized, and indeed we have early Christian testimony that says otherwise, which you also choose to ignore.

Seeing as how the definition of infusion is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the believer and washes away original sin, I already showed pages of relevant verses demonstrating Spirit, forgiveness of sins, and water. 1+1 = 2, Ed.

Lastly, you haven’t given any clear argument whatsoever for why Saul was “saved” upon belief, but conveniently was saved without having his sins forgiven. Oh wait, he had them forgiven at baptism. So then you tried to say that Ananias really meant “washing the sins from your mind.” Where in Scripture is that concept even present, Ed? And if you can have certainty of forgiveness upon belief, why would it take place at baptism? And how does Ananias know that the guilt will be wiped from his mind at the exact moment of baptism? Why can’t you just accept the text for what it says?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Here’s two more of Nathan’s statements that can’t be supported by Scripture: posted on 425
Statement #1
Also, you repeatedly state that blood is necessary. Nobody ever denied that Ed. What you deny is that Paul says that the baptism is what buries you into the sacrifice of his blood. Stop ignoring the Bible Ed. -----PLEASE NOTE: “buries you into the sacrifice of His Blood?“ There is no Scripture that states that statement.

Statement #2
Regardless of Paul’s belief, he was not forgiven of sins, he was not saved. Not until his baptism. ----PLEASE NOTE: There’s no Scripture that supports that statement. In plain English Nathan does not understand the gospel. Here’s how Paul explains it in 1 Cor 15:2, “ By this gospel you ARE SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. V 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, v4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”-----PLEASE NOTE: It says we are saved if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. Water baptism is not mentioned, or needed to be saved. However; we do get baptized to show our repentance. In addition to this Scripture there are numerous others stating the same. Rom 10: 9-10,13, Acts 16:31, John 3:16

Nathan speaks much about what he thinks, but the truth is not based on what we think, it’s based upon what the Scriptures say. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed please respond to my above post and stop taking select portions of my arguments. This is becoming typical for you and it is unproductive. Why do you contradict the Bible and say Saul had his sins forgiven before Acts says his sins were forgiven, then try to say the Bible really meant to say something else?

And another thing, Ed, stop being trite. There is no other sacrifice other than his blood, you are merely uncomfortable with the fact that Paul is quite clear that baptism is what make you a partaker in the cross.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed I’m not giving up when you “trash me.” I tend not to feel like responding, however, for a very key reason:

Every time we focus on a specific point (such as Saul’s baptism), you decide to respond to a very select portion of my post when you don’t have an answer. I’m not letting you do that. I want you to prove your point. Somehow you think Ananias is not referring to the washing away of sins (even though that’s exactly what he says); you think it refers to guilt. So prove it. Prove from somewhere in the Bible that personal guilty feelings over sins is ever equated with sins themselves, and then explain why Ananias didn’t just say guilt to begin with.

AFTER you do that, which is what I’ve been trying to get you to do for a few pages worth of thread now, we will move on to other related topics

Hi Nathan, is this what you want? “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water,” ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

ttd

 

[benedictus2]

PLEASE NOTE: Above it states that Jesus takes away the sins of the world , so how can Nathan claim that water baptism does too?

Because water by itself does not take away the sins of the world. It is by virtue of Christ’s baptism that enables the water to cleanse us of our sins. As someone else said above, the symbols of the sacrament (in this case water) does not only signify but actually effect what it signififies.

Refer back to 1 Peter 3 which I quoted above.

Nowhere, in the above Scripture does it even give a hint that John’s water baptism turns into a sacrament with the presence of the Spirit.

Because the proof is not limited to this verse. Refer to Peter once more.

Furthermore, Jesus said one must be born of water and Spirit. And the fact is John almost refused to baptise Jesus and yet Jesus INSISTED. Now the Holy Spirit desceening on Jesus could have happened at any other point and yet God chooses for that to happen at this particular moment. Here we have a confirmation that water and spirit work together towards this cleansing as clearly elucidated by Peter.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed please respond to my above post and stop taking select portions of my arguments. This is becoming typical for you and it is unproductive. Why do you contradict the Bible and say Saul had his sins forgiven before Acts says his sins were forgiven, then try to say the Bible really meant to say something else?

And another thing, Ed, stop being trite. There is no other sacrifice other than his blood, you are merely uncomfortable with the fact that Paul is quite clear that baptism is what make you a partaker in the cross

Here’s another silly argument Nathan makes by his statement also posted on 425.

This is the Scripture being quoted:
Acts 9:17: “So Ananias left and entered the house. Then he placed his hands on him and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road you were traveling, has sent me so you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ At once something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he got up and was baptized.”

Here’s Nathan’s response:
Ananias did not specify the exact moment when he would get the Holy Spirit, only that he would get it. And doesn’t it seem to you that if Ananias was infusing the Holy Spirit at this point, Paul would have gotten it when his hands were still on him and not after he gets up?-----PLEASE NOTE: In Plain English the Scripture says that Ananias laid hands on him to be healed and also to be FILLED with the Holy Spirit. Then Nathan says, “but it does not say the exact moment he received the Holy Spirit. He goes on to say that Paul then received the Holy Spirit when he got up and was baptized. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION; Way back there somewhere I asked Nathan to show me the Scripture where the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism. Finally on post 454 he admits there isn’t any. Now he states that Paul received the Holy Spirit when he got baptized. How crazy can this get ???

The Bible is very clear. The only way that the Holy Spirit is infused ( in dwelling with the evidence of speaking in tongues) is by the laying of hands which Ananias had done. In Acts 8:12 the people believed the gospel and were water baptized but they did not received the Holy Spirit until Peter and John came down and laid hands on them. In Acts 19: 2-6 The people were water baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit until Paul laid hands on them and they spoke in tongues. We know that Paul spoke in tongues. From where did he then get the Holy Spirit? It had to be when Ananias laid hands on him, because the Holy Spirit does not come by water baptism. There’s no Scriptures to say that it does. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“Hi Nathan, is this what you want? “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water,” ED O.”

Response: Hey, Ed, here’s the problem. The NIV is the only translation I could find that renders the word that way. Here’s the word used for conscience in the Greek:

4893 suneidesis {soon-i’-day-sis} from a prolonged form of 4894; TDNT - 7:898,1120; n f 1) the consciousness of anything 2) the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other 2a) the conscience

here’s what the word you translated as “guilty” really is:

4190 poneros {pon-ay-ros’} from a derivative of 4192; TDNT - 6:546,912; adj 1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships 1a) pressed and harassed by labours 1b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble 2) bad, of a bad nature or condition 2a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind 2b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad ++++ The word is used in the nominative case in Mt. 6:13. This usually denotes a title in the Greek. Hence Christ is saying, deliver us from “The Evil”, and is probably referring to Satan.

This actually does you quite a bit of damage, because the clean water apparently cleanses a soul/conscience inclined to do evil (gasp, original sin?). The word “guilty” is a mistranslation and it would seem is theologically bent. I have ten translations and ONLY the NIV words it such. It isn’t in the Greek Ed. Nice try, and I do mean that. You at least made an honest effort and I appreciate it.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

As for your ridiculous argument immediately above, that’s what happens when you only use one passage to bolster your argument instead of two. Ananias says to arise and be baptized, washing away Saul’s sins. This is after he laid hands on him for healing. This is also highly relevant because nowhere will you find the laying on of hands taking place BEFORE baptism. Sorry Ed, you selectively quote me, and it makes you look ridiculous.

 

[benedictus2]

Here’s how Paul explains it in 1 Cor 15:2, “ By this gospel you ARE SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. V 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, v4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”-----PLEASE NOTE: It says we are saved if we believe that Jesus died for our sins.

Only if you truncate and misrepresent what Paul’s intent was.

But since we are talking about Christ’s salvific action then let us go to Christ Himself and see what HE says about that.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Christ say that.

This is why you cannot read Paul in isolation. Paul’s letters must always be referred back to the Gospels.

Water baptism is not mentioned, or needed to be saved.

Just because it is not mentioned does not mean that Paul disregards this. When Paul speaks of being baptized in Christ, he is speaking of water baptism because that is the manner by which the first Christians did it. As the term itself means, to baptize is to immerse or dip in water.

However; we do get baptized to show our repentance.

We do not get baptized to show our repentance. We get baptized to be incorporated into the Body of Christ in the same way that Jews get circumcized. It is a sacrament of initiation. And to be a member of the Body of Christ, one needs to be cleansed, regenerated and that is why baptism cleanses us from original and personal sin.

You need to get away from a very narrow reading of scripture.

Nathan speaks much about what he thinks, but the truth is not based on what we think, it’s based upon what the Scriptures say. ED O.

While Scripture does say what is true, not everything that is true is contained in Scripture. That is why instead of writing the Gospels, Jesus instead built a Church. The church came first. And the church has always understood that incorporation into the Body of Christ is through baptism.

Jesus said before he ascended: Go therefore… baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

In Jesus’s time the only baptism they know is water baptism because that is what the term baptism actually means.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by benedictus2
I think what Nathan was trying to explain to you is that “baptismal regineration” is not effected by merely calling on the name of Jesus. And he is right, you cannot support that from the Bible

There’s no such thing as “batismal regineration”, John 3;5 does not speak of water baptism. That’s Catholic theology. I suggest you that you read further down in John and read John 3:16 We are reginerated by belief in Jesus, as in Acts 10:44, Acts 16:3, Rom 10:13 and many more Eph 1:13 spells it out quite adequately, point by point with out water baptism. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey Ed, while you are responding to my above post which pretty much negates your argument, I’d like to point out that your definition of belief is unbiblical, since Jesus equates belief with obedience. This is probably why Saul didn’t have his sins washed away until he BELIEVED in the BIBLICAL sense by OBEYING and getting BAPTIZED. Cherrypick the verses all you want, but you have made some very poor arguments by selectively quoting Scripture, as well as many of my posts. You have yet to prove that the term “belief” means what you think it does, as opposed to what Jesus thinks it does.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Natah Wagar
As for your ridiculous argument immediately above, that’s what happens when you only use one passage to bolster your argument instead of two. Ananias says to arise and be baptized, washing away Saul’s sins. This is after he laid hands on him for healing. This is also highly relevant because nowhere will you find the laying on of hands taking place BEFORE baptism. Sorry Ed, you selectively quote me, and it makes you look ridiculous

Nathan, did you say" nowhere will you find the laying on of hands taking place BEFORE baptism?" You are wrong I found in Acts 9:17 that exactly what Ananias did. By the way he did what Jesus told him to do. If you think that Paul wasn’t saved until he got baptized, maybe Jesus should have then told Ananias to first sprinkle him first and get him saved then lay hands on him to heal him. What do you think? ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, if Anananias imparted the Holy Spirit when he laid his hands on Saul (as opposed to just healing him), then somehow Saul had the Holy Spirit infused, and still had to arise and have his sins washed away. Seems like you’re stuck, my man. I already dealt with your interesting attempt to say the Bible really meant “guilty conscience.” That wouldn’t even make sense anyway because the guilty conscience should have been gone upon the moment of Saul’s “belief,” not the moment of baptism. You’re making assumptions based on already refuted arguments. That’s why you really shouldn’t get ahead of yourself.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Hey Ed, while you are responding to my above post which pretty much negates your argument, I’d like to point out that your definition of belief is unbiblical, since Jesus equates belief with obedience. This is probably why Saul didn’t have his sins washed away until he BELIEVED in the BIBLICAL sense by OBEYING and getting BAPTIZED. Cherrypick the verses all you want, but you have made some very poor arguments by selectively quoting Scripture, as well as many of my posts. You have yet to prove that the term “belief” means what you think it does, as opposed to what Jesus thinks it does

Nathan you are wrong again, my gosh! Don’t you read the Bible? Obedience comes after salvation otherwise you negate Eph 2:8-9, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” What kind of a gift would that be if we have to do (obedience) something to receive the gift? It would then be works. page 987 in my Bible. ED O…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

You can’t use the epistles of Paul to try and negate Jesus. Obedience comes from grace, but Jesus, as I showed very early in this thread (apparently you not only do not read the Bible, you don’t read my posts) equates belief with obedience, in the very same gospel of John as the passage of baptism we disagree so strongly on, no less. You never even dealt with those arguments. Instead of fighting Scripture with Scripture, you ignore some, choose the verses you like and then read your own theology into the text. I’ve made some pretty difficult arguments for you to deal with. You tend to blow them off or ignore them, resulting in us going in circles.

The idea of the “gift” is that now our obedience will be viewed through the eyes of grace, instead of the law. It is very much still a gift, Ed, since we are part of the family of God. Now you are simply creating a straw man of Catholic belief.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed, if Anananias imparted the Holy Spirit when he laid his hands on Saul (as opposed to just healing him), then somehow Saul had the Holy Spirit infused, and still had to arise and have his sins washed away. Seems like you’re stuck, my man. I already dealt with your interesting attempt to say the Bible really meant “guilty conscience.” That wouldn’t even make sense anyway because the guilty conscience should have been gone upon the moment of Saul’s “belief,” not the moment of baptism. You’re making assumptions based on already refuted arguments. That’s why you really shouldn’t get ahead of yourself

You have a valid point. But you’ll have to ask the Lord that question when you get to heaven since He set it up in that order. Marl 16:17 Believe the gospel then be baptized. Gee! your awful technical! ED O.

 

[benedictus2]

There’s no such thing as “batismal regineration”, John 3;5 does not speak of water baptism. That’s Catholic theology. I suggest you that you read further down in John and read John 3:16 We are reginerated by belief in Jesus, as in Acts 10:44, Acts 16:3, Rom 10:13 and many more Eph 1:13 spells it out quite adequately, point by point with out water baptism. ED O.

Jesus said in John 3:2 "“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”

And he further emphasizes how this is being born from above is to happen:
Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. "

---

And you keep ignoring this: 1 Peter 3
For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. 19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6 20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I could argue that based on the grammatical construction of that passage, that by being baptized you ARE believing, but I digress.

Ed, I’m not trying to be too technical. I am trying to show you something I had to honestly face when I was a Protestant: if something contradicts my theology that is in the Bible, then my theology isn’t true. I converted.

Regardless of whether the same happens with you, I appreciate that you admitted the validity of my point. It takes a big man to do that, and it really does mean a lot to me personally. God Bless.