"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by geometer
Hello again,

I haven’t been following this thread, but since everyone get there religious ideas from Paul, have you considered Titus chapter 3?

If you haven’t I am sure you all can divide that up and argue another 800 posts…

enjoy

Yes Titus 3 had been challenged. But it’s the same old story, anytime the words “water” or “washing” appear, it automatically means “water” baptism here. Titus 3:5, “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and the renewal by the Holy Spirit.”-----Eph 5:26, “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.” This would probably mean that the Bible would have to be put under water. ED O,

 

[panevino]

Posted by panevino
Ed,
what is ur understanding of acts 19:3-6
why did they need to be baptized in name of Jesus after it was discovered that they were baptized by John.
And then they also had laying of hands

Paul already explained it in v 4. He said John’s “water” baptism was a baptism of REPENTANCE. He wanted them to receive the Holy Spirit so He then laid hands on them and they received. That’s what I’ve been saying all the time, John “water” baptism does NOT bring on the Holy Spirit. Paul says it twice, John and Jesus both say the same . ED O.

Hang on, dosent it say they were baptized in name of Jesus, after
Paul explained what the baptism was that they got from john…
(A baptism in the name of Jesus in “water” is clearly shown in
acts 8:36-39)
and then after this baptism in Jesus
in verse 6 the laying of hands occurs immediately after. (ie two seperate actions)

… Paul says it twice, John and Jesus both say the same . ED O.

John effectively says that his baptism does not incl HS but Jesus will
acts 8:36- shows water baptism in Jesus name.

Paul - in acts 19:3 differentiates the 2 baptisms (which are shown in scripture to both be made in water)

Jesus says must to water &spirit (yeah - I know - but u have not convinced me about natural birthh here and u have not responded to my understanding of John 3:6 In earlier post about flesh/spirit - seperate from that post, if he meant flesh in v5 why did he not just say flesh - this is more significant than your question - Ie: something like …why did he not say must be born of baptism and spirit)

In a way I am pesimistic about this debate as I don’t think we will ever convince eachother because we both think the opposing view depletes the word. (though of course this is so important so we perserveer)
U must remember though CCC says that fruits of sacrament depend on the disposition of the recipent. As I said b4 can’t be water alone.

And also god can work outside of sacrament ie baptism of desire (thief on cross)
however Jesus still clearly says water and spirit
and water baptism is shown in name of Jesus
yes belief is KEY but Jesus still said MUST to water & spirit.
I feel alot more assured acepting the word water on face value when he could of said flesh in v5
and water baptism is shown in Jesus name.

 

[panevino]

Posted by panevino,
have u seen any in any denomination recieve gift of new tounges ie: speaking a new language to spread word to diff country? Beside the HS tounge that is not clearly understandable to general public.?
I am not being sarcastic here

I most certainly have. I’m curious what do you mean by spreading the word to various countries? At times the gift is very understanable to the general public, ED O.

Nah, I assumed that u had seen tounges…
What I was interested in (and would be excited about it - hence my comment about not being sarcastic) is wether you have ever seen some one actually/legitamitely speak in a different language (ie Malaysian or Arabic)
my understanding is that is basically what happened at Pentecost
ie observers were saying things like how do they speak my tounge…Ie to help spread word around globe
kjv acts2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2
The world didn’t start with the New Testament.

I never said it did.

It started with Adam & Eve. Rom 5:12,” When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. His sin spread death throughout all the world, so everything began to grow old and die. As a result, God had a substitutionary plan in mind in order to rescue the human race. This is how He did it. Leviticus 17:11, states, “For the life of a creature is in the Blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the Blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” To make it simple to understand, God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. ( 1 ) Substitutionary death. In the O. T. instead of people dying for their sins, animals were substituted.

Are you telling me that the people in the OT (Abraham, Moses, etc) were saved from their sins by the blood of the animals they sacrificed?
If they were already saved from their sin (which of course meant death) then why were they still waiting for the messiah when the animal blood was working just fine?

Please answer that.

In the N. T. Jesus died in our place ( 2 ) Blood is used for atonement to forgive sins. In the O. T. animals Blood . In the N. T. Jesus’ Blood used to forgive sins.

So I re-iterate my question here. Why did God have to become incarnate, die and rise again, if according to you in the OT, the blood of the animal was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins?

Don’t you get it? If the whole point is forgiveness of sins, and the animals sacrifices were working just fine, why then does God have to come? Please answer that.

Starting with Adam & Eve, when they sinned they covered themselves with fig leaves. Gen 3:7. God then covered them with animal’s skins Gen. 3:21. WHY? Animals died in their place and blood for atonement. As we continue, Cane brought some fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord, Abel brought fat portions from his flock. God rejected Cane’s offering but accepted Abel’s offering Gen 4:3. WHY? Abel killed an animal/blood.

In Gen Abel tended flocks, Cain worked the field. When one makes an offering, one is supposed to offer the fruits of their labour, that is why Abel offered his flock and Cain offered the fruits of the soil. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO with appeasement of an angry God.

For one thing, God did not decree what they should offer. That kind of decree came waaayy later.

God continues, in Moses’ time, God established a priestly system where they killed the animals and sprinkled the blood on the altar for the peoples sins. Only once a year was the High Priest allowed to entered a special room separated by a curtain, Holy of Hollies and sprinkled blood for the atonement for his and the peoples sins. He was replaced when he died.

Okay.

We continue into the N. T. Jesus is our Lamb and His Blood Mat 26:28, Jesus speaks, “This is my Blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” At the moment that Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was torn from top to the bottom, indicating that the animal system expired Mat 27:51.

But the question remains, why did God need to send His Son to die and cause the animal system to “expire” when according to you it was working okay and was doing what it was supposed to do, I.e. enable the forgiveness of sins.

 

[benedictus2]

Nah, I assumed that u had seen tounges…
What I was interested in (and would be excited about it - hence my comment about not being sarcastic) is wether you have ever seen some one actually/legitamitely speak in a different language (ie Malaysian or Arabic)
my understanding is that is basically what happened at Pentecost
ie observers were saying things like how do they speak my tounge…Ie to help spread word around globe
kjv acts2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Exactly! The apostles did not speak some garbled un-intelligible gibberish. They actually spoke languages that others understood so they can spread the gospel.

This is actually seen as a reversal of the Tower of Bable experience.

A foreign missionary in China recounted something similar when he was sent there. He said he does not know how they were able to evangelize considering they did not know Chinese and those they were preaching to knew no English and yet they all understood each other.

 

[benedictus2]

I most certainly have. I’m curious what do you mean by spreading the word to various countries? At times the gift is very understanable to the general public, ED O.

What is the point of the gibberish if it cannot be understood? Furthermore, if it requires someone else to interpret it, how do we know that the interpreter is not merely making up his interpretation? Itsn’t rather suspicious that the speaker himself does not know what she is blabbering about and cannot even definitively say that what the interpreter is saying is true?

The gifts of the Spirit are meant to increase faith, hope and love so as to bring about the kingdom of God. How is unintelligible gibberish supposed to do that?

Even supposing that there really is such a gift, Paul does not exactly endorse it. On the other hand he emphasizes the gifts the build the church.

 

[benedictus2]

Panevivo my friend, why are you associating the Holy Spirit with the gifts per 1 Cor 12?

How about because it is always the Holy Spriit who gives these gifts? Unless as I have mentioned before the devil can induce glossalalia as well.

Here’s your problem. You believe that you receive the Holy Spirit at “water” baptism, so you then associate the Holy Spirit, laying of hands, with the gifts at confirmation. That makes two Holy Spirits and confirmation is not in the Bible.

How do you account for Jesus breathing on His disciples in John 20 and the decent of the HolySpirit in Acts. Does that make it two Holy Spirits as well?

I’ll let Jesus explain to you what’s it all about per John 14:25-26, " All this I have spoken while still with you. v26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." Jesus says nothing about gifts here. ED O.

Does the fact that He does not mention the gifts of the Holy Spirit in this verse mean that one does ot get the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

BTW, Just dumping the verse here and saying “Jesus explains” does not suffice. Because Jesus does not explain. He merely says this. It is up to you to explain what you think it means.

 

[benedictus2]

Paul already explained it in v 4. He said John’s “water” baptism was a baptism of REPENTANCE. He wanted them to receive the Holy Spirit so He then laid hands on them and they received.

You missed the point of Panevino’s question so here it is again:

panevino:

Ed, what is ur understanding of acts 19:3-6 why did they need to be baptized in name of Jesus after it was discovered that they were baptized by John. And then they also had laying of hands.

And here is that verse:
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

With this passage in mind, what panevino was trying to ask you is how come they were baptized again? They were already baptized by John then they were baptized a second time. What was the point of the second baptism? **Why did Paul baptize them a second time. **

Surely if all they need is to receive the Holy Spriit by the laying on of hands, Paul did not need to baptize them again?

That’s what I’ve been saying all the time, John “water” baptism does NOT bring on the Holy Spirit.

And no one ever said it did (except when it did on Jesus). But the baptism we now have in the Catholic Church is not John’s water baptism. It is Christ’s baptism because this is what He commanded the apostles, to baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Paul says it twice, John and Jesus both say the same . ED O.

Actually not. Can you tell me where John and Jesus say the same.

Now you might think I am cheer leading for panevino this time around so I better grab the pom poms <go, pane, go>

 

[Bob4BVM]

Panevivo my friend, why are you associating the Holy Spirit with the gifts per 1 Cor 12? Here’s your problem. You believe that you receive the Holy Spirit at “water” baptism, so you then associate the Holy Spirit, laying of hands, with the gifts at confirmation. That makes two Holy Spirits and confirmation is not in the Bible. I’ll let Jesus explain to you what’s it all about per John 14:25-26, " All this I have spoken while still with you. v26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." Jesus says nothing about gifts here. ED O.

If that’s what you believe Ed, I pity you in your poverty.
Say whatever you want, make it all come out the way you want.
I KNOW better.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Nah, I assumed that u had seen tounges…
What I was interested in (and would be excited about it - hence my comment about not being sarcastic) is wether you have ever seen some one actually/legitamitely speak in a different language (ie Malaysian or Arabic)
my understanding is that is basically what happened at Pentecost
ie observers were saying things like how do they speak my tounge…Ie to help spread word around globe
kjv acts2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Yes !!!

 

[Bob4BVM]

Panevivo my friend, why are you associating the Holy Spirit with the gifts per 1 Cor 12? Here’s your problem. You believe that you receive the Holy Spirit at “water” baptism, so you then associate the Holy Spirit, laying of hands, with the gifts at confirmation. That makes two Holy Spirits and confirmation is not in the Bible. I’ll let Jesus explain to you what’s it all about per John 14:25-26, " All this I have spoken while still with you. v26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." Jesus says nothing about gifts here. ED O.

Ed, you are missing the whole deal from the Catholic perspective.
You see, we cannot divide the Trinity.
Therefore, wherever the Father or the Son are present, there also is the Holy Spirit.
Christ lives in me. Therefore…

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
Hang on, dosent it say they were baptized in name of Jesus, after
Paul explained what the baptism was that they got from john…
(A baptism in the name of Jesus in “water” is clearly shown in
acts 8:36-39)
and then after this baptism in Jesus
in verse 6 the laying of hands occurs immediately after. (ie two seperate actions)

Hi panevino, allow me to explain Acts 19:2-6, these are NOT two seperate actions. ( 1 )There’s no water mentioned here. ( 2 ) starting at v5, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. AND when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” ( 3 ) Paul simply did that act in Jesus’ name.

John effectively says that his baptism does not incl HS but Jesus will
acts 8:36- shows water baptism in Jesus name.

This episode shows “water” baptism being done. It doesn’t says in the name of Jesus but even if it did say so, it wouldn’t matter because in Acts 10:48, after Cornelius and his group already received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues, Peter speaks, “And he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Point here is this: You believe that the Holy Spirit comes upon a person in “water” baptism and I say No according to John 1:12 and Eph 1:13.

Paul - in acts 19:3 differentiates the 2 baptisms (which are shown in scripture to both be made in water)

I explained this above quite adequately but I’m not sure how effectively? You are pretty tough! Just kidding

Jesus says must to water &spirit (yeah - I know - but u have not convinced me about natural birthh here and u have not responded to my understanding of John 3:6 In earlier post about flesh/spirit - seperate from that post, if he meant flesh in v5 why did he not just say flesh - this is more significant than your question - Ie: something like …why did he not say must be born of baptism and spirit)

( 1 ) In one of my prior posts,I gave many Scriptures explaining that “water” is a metaphor alluding to people that alone should have been convincing but since it wasn’t, how about this. ( 2 ) Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again. He replies how can he go back into his mother’s womb. Jesus replies,"-----no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." If “water” means baptism, how would Nicodemus anything about baptism? That’s why Jesus in v5 explains the two parts of man (body& soul) and further reiterates in v6. in v8 Jesus, rather to explain about baptism since Nicodemus knows nothing about, Jesus speaks of the wind comparing it to the Holy Spirit which can’t be seen. v9 Nicodemus, “How can this be?” he still doesn’t understand. v10 Jesus in essence asks what kind of a teacher are you? That pretty much ended their dialog. Now you tell me, if you were Nicodemus would you know to go get baptized? ( 3 ) This is the most convincing as it can get. Acts 19:2, Paul asks, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you BELIEVED?” Doesn’t that ring a bell! That the Holy Spirit comes by belief not “water” baptism, exactly as to what took place in Acts 10:44 with Cornelius.

U must remember though CCC says that fruits of sacrament depend on the disposition of the recipent. As I said b4 can’t be water alone.

It can’t be water alone but from what I point out above, it can be by BELIEF alone.

And also god can work outside of sacrament ie baptism of desire (thief on cross)
however Jesus still clearly says water and spirit
and water baptism is shown in name of Jesus
yes belief is KEY but Jesus still said MUST to water & spirit.
I feel alot more assured acepting the word water on face value when he could of said flesh in v5
and water baptism is shown in Jesus name

panevino my friend, besides the thief who got to heaven without “water” baptism, there’s going to be many many people from the O.T.who’s sins were forgiven without baptism, and the many many people who died in the flood that Jesus went down to the prison and preached to them. The ones that BELIEVE will be forgiven without “water” baptism. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

The only person in modern times that I would say certainly had this gift is (Saint) Padre Pio of Pietrelcina

I think you would have a big problem trying to convince the Catholic Charismatics of that. ED O.

 

[adriancombe]

I think you would have a big problem trying to convince the Catholic Charismatics of that. ED O.

Most of the ones I have known concurred when I explained the rationale in light of Scripture, specifically the Pentecost narrative.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
Nah, I assumed that u had seen tounges…
What I was interested in (and would be excited about it - hence my comment about not being sarcastic) is wether you have ever seen some one actually/legitamitely speak in a different language (ie Malaysian or Arabic)
my understanding is that is basically what happened at Pentecost
ie observers were saying things like how do they speak my tounge…Ie to help spread word around globe
kjv acts2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language

It seems, anyone who has never received the gift of tongues will say ( 1 ) At Pentecost they spoke in understandable language which is true. But in 1 Cor 14:2, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” v4, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.”------- Also Rom.8:26 states, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express… v27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.” That’s why the speaking in tongues should never be called gibberish language. Because Mark 3:29 states,’ But whoever blaphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

( 2 ) This is why in Mark 16:17, Jesus says, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they WILL speak in new tongues;----.” For what is said here, one would think it would be very necessary to seek the gift of tongues." ED O.

 

[panevino]

It seems, anyone who has never received the gift of tongues will say ( 1 ) At Pentecost they spoke in understandable language which is true. But in 1 Cor 14:2, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” v4, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.”------- Also Rom.8:26 states, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express… v27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.” That’s why the speaking in tongues should never be called gibberish language. Because Mark 3:29 states,’ But whoever blaphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

( 2 ) This is why in Mark 16:17, Jesus says, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they WILL speak in new tongues;----.” For what is said here, one would think it would be very necessary to seek the gift of tongues." ED O.

hi Ed,
you’ll note that I did not discredit the version of tounges that is not understandable to general public.
I was sincerely keen to hear of a tounges event that was a diff language like Arabic for example.
Regarding the other one , I don’t see that it is a must for all.
Just as all who did get the incomprehensible (to some) tounges have not driven out demons or safe from funny water.
That cor 12 verse shows this , I don’t see how u could ignore it.
Assuming u are of opinion that u must have tounges ( I’m not sure about ur thoughts onthat.)
any way on this topic, don’t get me wrong, I have respect for it when it’s valid and not forced. I know Very firm protestants that have described a culture of pressure to get tounges. I know that quality of churches can vary so I’m not saying its like this in every Protestant church . Just something I’m aware of.

I’ll get back t u about ur other replies. Very busy at moment

 

[panevino]

Ed
can u clarify what is a Christian baptism to u
is it

1. water baptism as sign/pledge of repentence only per johns baptism
2. The moment when someone truly believes - no water
3. belief & “laying of hands” then descent of HS with gifts - no water
4. 1&2
5. 1&3
6. 1,2&3

my answer as u know is water baptism in name of trinity with belief
with confirmation for laying of hands

this not a bait
I’m not going to throw the "1 baptism "verse at u

also what about “born again”
is it

1. Moment of belief only
2. Belief and “laying of hands” and HS
3. 1&2 with water baptism as sign only of repentance

Thanks
please add more if Ive missed something
treid to keep it simple So I may of missed something

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
hi Ed,
Regarding the other one , I don’t see that it is a must for all.

It’s not a must for all. However; if I had a nice gift for you and you refused to take it, how would that make me feel? That’s what one does who refuses God’s gift. Besides, it edifies oneself. For me, I’ll take as much of God as I can get.

Just as all who did get the incomprehensible (to some) tounges have not driven out demons or safe from funny water.
That cor 12 verse shows this , I don’t see how u could ignore it.

I’m not sure what you mean here?

Assuming u are of opinion that u must have tounges ( I’m not sure about ur thoughts onthat.)

I believe I answered this above. ED O.

 

[adriancombe]

It’s not a must for all. However; if I had a nice gift for you and you refused to take it, how would that make me feel? That’s what one does who refuses God’s gift. Besides, it edifies oneself. For me, I’ll take as much of God as I can get.

I’m not sure what you mean here?

I believe I answered this above. ED O.

Perhaps those who wish to discuss glosslalia in more depth should strart a new thread so we can stay on topic here. I think someone was claiming Catholics reject John 3?

 

[panevino]

Quote:
Posted by panevino
hi Ed,
Regarding the other one , I don’t see that it is a must for all.

It’s not a must for all. However; if I had a nice gift for you and you refused to take it, how would that make me feel? That’s what one does who refuses God’s gift. Besides, it edifies oneself. For me, I’ll take as much of God as I can get

.
Agreed
I believe gifts are given in Catholic church .
Agreed it’s rarely a personal edification tounges, or none that I’m aware of (apart from charismatic catholics)
but to me that is not a sign of a defeated church, but a sign of a church that is offered other gifts perhaps also self edifying and also churc/faith edifying
1cor12:8-9 talks about gifts of “faith” & another is “word of wisdom”
kjv 1cor12: 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

agreed the faith one is less dramatic and expressive as tounges
but probably more important.

Just as all who did get the incomprehensible (to some) tounges have not driven out demons or safe from funny water.
That cor 12 verse shows this , I don’t see how u could ignore it.

yeah not written well. Do this most on my phone so…
Probably don’t need to discuss more, as I see u agree that dwelt edifying tounges is not a must.
When I said incomprehensible I meant self edifying tounges
when I said (to some) I was refering to some who I believe are given ability to interpret tounges. Anyway it’s good to see that u don’t believe it is a must for all as the only sign of true belief.