"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[The_Ambassador]

My challenge to you is to look up the Greek for yourself, do some careful exegesis, not eisegesis. The bottom line is that the word eis is not used in scripture in the way that you outline it to be. It is a false and inaccurate translation and usage of the word.

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology.

It is true that in themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of “eis” does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7.

But then another usage of this term actually does exist in Scripture with the meaning, “on the grounds of” or simply, “because of.”

It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples, “eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou” where it cannot mean purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, that is, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. (search the Greek).

It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah. They repented *because of *(or at) the preaching of Jonah. Again, it cannot mean that they repented unto or at the aim of Jona’s preaching, for the preaching of Jonah was the cause of their repentance. (Again, search the Greek)

The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally. One will decide the use here in Acts 2:38, according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.

My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or that baptism is the means of securing such remission.

So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who would turn (repent) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they would have already received by that repentance.

It appears to me, though, that you merely have a Greek concordance, and you are looking for a passage where this Greek word is translated as “because of.” And therefore you are not doing exegetical study, but rather relying upon the translators of our English Bibles.

The important part of the matter is not whether our tranlsators used the phrase “because of” but whether or not the use of the Greek term demands that we understand it as being “on the basis of” and not “in order that.” To demonstrate your position from the Greek would be a true exegetical study. But so far, you have not done so.

Nevertheless, thank you for your passion. I will be praying for you on this matter

 

[izoid]

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology.

It is true that in themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of “eis” does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7.

But then another usage of this term actually does exist in Scripture with the meaning, “on the grounds of” or simply, “because of.”

It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples, “eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou” where it cannot mean purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, that is, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. (search the Greek).

It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah. They repented *because of *(or at) the preaching of Jonah. Again, it cannot mean that they repented unto or at the aim of Jona’s preaching, for the preaching of Jonah was the cause of their repentance. (Again, search the Greek)

**The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally. One will decide the use here in Acts 2:38, according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. **

My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or that baptism is the means of securing such remission.

So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who would turn (repent) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they would have already received by that repentance.

It appears to me, though, that you merely have a Greek concordance, and you are looking for a passage where this Greek word is translated as “because of.” And therefore you are not doing exegetical study, but rather relying upon the translators of our English Bibles.

The important part of the matter is not whether our tranlsators used the phrase “because of” but whether or not the use of the Greek term demands that we understand it as being “on the basis of” and not “in order that.” To demonstrate your position from the Greek would be a true exegetical study. But so far, you have not done so.

Nevertheless, thank you for your passion. I will be praying for you on this matter

While I am no Greek scholar I am not using a Greek concordance. I am using Zodiahtes Greek Dictionary of the NT.

I am curious, if your interpretation is correct, why no Biblical Greek scholar has translated the word, eis, in this passage as you have. I am quite certain that they all know the nuances of Biblical Greek but they felt the word “for” was most appropriate. Taking it a step further, why do they never translate it “because of”?

I bolded your text above that I find very truthful. I think for us to make an informed decision on this matter we should look at more sources than merely our own viewpoint. When I researched what the early church believed about baptism I found the unanimous opinion of the early church was that of baptismal regeneration. I can see no logical reason why that interpretation should be challenged, particularly in light of your admission above.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by AwGusTeen
Scripture plainly tells us that Baptism washes away sin; and through Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit. Hi AwGusTeen Eph 1:13 states," And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal of the promised Holy Spirit. who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession."-----Doesn’t this tell me that I’m a Christian and sealed with the Holy Spirit and I’m assured eternal life? Yet it says nothing at all about "water"baptism. Doesn’t this contradict what you state above?

So, is it through baptism that we become Christians and members of the Body of Christ,

I’m assuming that you are speaking of "water"baptism, if so, can you give me the exact Scriptures that tells me so.

There is no passage in the Bible that says we become Christians by accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.

Rom 10:13 states, " Anyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved." Doesn’t this also contradict what you say?

While it is extremely important to have a personal relationship with Jesus, that in itself does not save.

In Acts 16:29, the jailer asked Paul, “what must I do to be saved?” Paul replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Doesn’t that also contradict what you say?

COLOR=“navy”]Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific as the Catholic Church teaches?

Yes! The Catholic church does teach that. However; the Bible teaches the new covenant in this way Mat26:28,“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Now Jesus said that! ]

COLOR=“red”]1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water ] .

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the BibleNow your saying that Noah got saved by water. Yes, their physical bodies didn’t drown but Noah was saved prior to that. While he was building the Ark he was already saved for 120 years as is stated in Heb 11:7, “By faith, Noah warned (preached) about things not yet seen, in Holy fear built an ark to save his family, by his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” In plain English, he got saved by faith as we get saved by faith in Jesus. Paul states in 1 Cor 15:2, " By this gospel you are saved----"

Further, let’s look at Jesus’ own words in John’s gospel
…

COLOR=“red”]John 3:5 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This was discussed many many times already

COLOR=“navy”] I think I read in one of your previous posts where you claimed that the water spoken of here is the placental fluid inside the womb; but, scripture never says that. This position is an interpretation (I would call it tortured logic) that is not supported by the context of scripture. Further, let’s read on in context as follows a few verses later, after he finished his talk with Nicodemus…

You know that the water mentioned here means baptism, because someone told you. But if you had no knowledge about baptism, as Nicodemus hadn’t, how would you know that there is such a rite? Nicodemus surely didn,t because in verse 9 he said ,how can that be? And that ended their dialog.

John 3:22 22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

What did Jesus do immediately after telling Nicodemus how he can be saved? He went out baptizing with water. See the context? If you go to the next chapter John 4:1, it states, The pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, v2 although in fact it was NOT Jesus who baptized, but the disciples."

God Bless ED O.

 

[krakee]

Hi Ed,

It’s just a simple question. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Yes or No.

 

[benedictus2]

Calvin was a giant of the faith, but he is not Christ, nor the Holy Spirit.

Calvin was a great scholar, who was used mightily of the LORD,

Used mightily by the Lord or used by the evil one to be an agent of lies and lead the faithful astray?

but nevertheless he was still a man. Calvin received much light on certain biblical issues that were in dire need of being brought to light in his day. This does not mean that he therefore was infallible in all of his interpretations.

If he is not infallible in all his interpretaions, how do you know which one is true and which one is false.

And so although I do repect him, and hold him in high esteem, I nevertheless reserve the right to seek the Scriptures afresh concerning everything he, and all the rest of the godly men of the past, have handed down to us.

Aah so therefore, you reserve the right to be the authority, the magisterium in this case? What makes you so sure that your interpretation will be correct?

This is simply the responsible thing to do, as we are commanded by the Scriptures to “test all things, and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

But how do you test scripture. What is your yardstick?

Paul also gave us strict warning to guard against the religious tendencies of putting one man over against another. He commanded us never to put any man, for that matter, above that which is written. “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, so that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

But during Pauls time, “what is written” was only the OT, so therefore you are saying that we should only go by the OT? During Pauls time, we did not have the Bible as you know it now so Paul was not talking about the Bible.

 

[benedictus2]

RC,
I’m happy to hear you say this.
why would anyone reject God’s word?
Please read Jn.3:36, those who seem to have a problem with this, please tell us why.

God bless,
bluelake

Who says we have a problem with it? What we have a problem with is protestant exegesis of this passage, not the passage itself.

Don’t you think it is rather arrogant to imply that rejection of your explanation of this verse is a rejection of this verse?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by krakee
Hi Ed,
It’s just a simple question. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Yes or No

Hi krakee, it’s good to see you back again. Let’s make a deal. I’ll answer your question, if you will first answer my question. You state that the pope goes to confession once a week. You seem very surprise by that. On post 912 here’s your quote:

Quote:
ONCE A WEEK. Man that’s 4 times more than I TRY to go and I think once a month is exceptional

My response to you was as follows:

That really, really surprises me! Krakee, I imagine that you go to confession in order to confess sin. Would you be so kind and explain what this means, 1 John 3:9, “No one is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. v10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who are the children of etc.etc.” What is your exegesis on that?

So again, I’m asking you the same question, explain 1 John 3:9 to me and I’ll promise that I will answer your question. A deal! ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Hey Ed,
apologies for long posts… I think it is sometimes better to show the verses to save u looking up references.
I guess we have to agree to disagree it it’s literal water in jn 3:5.

Hi panevino, no need to apologize, I’ve recognized your kind spirit and I know that the long posts were not intentional.-------There’s a find point that I’d like to make, yes, it is actual water in John 3:5 that is, the water contained in a person’s body, flesh = 80%, and when Jesus was pierced it was actual water that came out, what I don’t believe in John 3:5 is that the water mentioned there means baptism.

But what u certainly have my agreement on is that
without faith(envoking blood sacrafice) water baptism bears no fruit.

Yes! We are in agreement here only if you believe that it’s Jesus who forgives and atones for sins. If you believe that sins are forgiven by “water” baptism, then you negate what Jesus did.

U also have my agreement that in some instances that no water is ok, per catholic interpretation.

I don’t know what the Catholic interpretation is, but in several cases water baptism isn’t necessary.

I never quite answered if hs acts in some way during water baptism.
Which was ur main query.

Yes! This is the problem. Many Catholics believe that when they are “water” baptized their sins are forgiven and somehow thru the water they receive the Holy Spirit.--------- My answer to that is that there’s no Scripture that indicates so. It’s my belief, per Eph 1:13, John 1:11 and Mat 3:11, when a person believes the gospel which is that Jesus died, His blood FORGAVE and ATONED for our sins, He was buried, and resurrected . On that basis, a person becomes saved (born again) and is sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. However; a person can believe all of that and is still be NOT saved if there isn’t any sign of true repentance per Mat 3:7-8. That’s where “water” baptism comes into play. When a person is “water” baptized, it’s an outward sign of showing true repentance to God, and the community and an inward reality of the gospel to one’s self. Simon did all of that, but his belief had to be false. He was rejected. .

as u know I think Christian baptism supersedes John water baptism.
Ie more happens (ie hs)
precedent of some kind of action is shown in that OT verse ez 36:24
and in Jesus baptism. (I know u disagree)

Yes! I disagree because in Ezk 36:24 mentions the sprinkling of water, so you are believing that water remits sins, which negates the gospel. Nowhere in the bible does it mentions “Christian baptism” It speak of baptizing in water in the Trinity. When you go swimming in the lake and make the sign of the cross before you dive in, you do so in the Trinity, does it save you? NO!

regarding physical birth
I think u might consider the other guys interpretation of
water = word
seems allot more relevant.

Not necessarily so, if the “water” there means the “Word” v6 would be irrelevant. However; yes! We are saved thru the Word.

I mean it’s a bit redundant to say that we must be physically born as a prerequisite. But I know u have ur reasons.

That’s exactly what v 6 states.

The way I see it my interpretation of literal water with faith plus being alive covers
word and physical birth interpretations.

John 3:5 is one of those verses that can be interpreted in various ways, that’s why there’s other Scripture verses to indicate it’s clear meaning. exp. Jesus said his blood forgives sins. Jehovah God in Lev 17:11 tells us only blood atones for sins. If sins are to be forgiven, it’s not complete without the blood atonement, on that basis “water” baptism can’t forgive sins. ED O. ,

 

[panevino]

Hi krakee, it’s good to see you back again. Let’s make a deal. I’ll answer your question, if you will first answer my question. You state that the pope goes to confession once a week. You seem very surprise by that. On post 912 here’s your quote:

Quote:
ONCE A WEEK. Man that’s 4 times more than I TRY to go and I think once a month is exceptional

My response to you was as follows:

That really, really surprises me! Krakee, I imagine that you go to confession in order to confess sin. Would you be so kind and explain what this means, 1 John 3:9, “No one is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. v10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who are the children of etc.etc.” What is your exegesis on that?

So again, I’m asking you the same question, explain 1 John 3:9 to me and I’ll promise that I will answer your question. A deal! ED O.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, **if thou continue in [his] goodness: **otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

luke11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Is not the last verse a prayer that Jesus teaches everyone including those allready born again.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Panevino, You jerked v8 out of the context. Start with v7, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the BLOOD of Jesus His Son, purifies us from all sin. --------Now v8 speaks about people who are not saved or have backsliden from the truth and no longer are walking in the Light, “He is faithful to forgive us” v10 elaborates more about these people who claim to be living in the light they are liars.-------Here’s what you missed. Chp2:1 which followed v10 states, “----I write this to you so that you will NOT sin… But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense----Jesus Christ, the Righteous One v2 He is the ATONING sacrifice for our sins.” ------- When you continue over to Chp 3:9, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s SEED remains in him, He cannot go on sinning, because he is born of God. v10 This is how we know who the children of God are,----”

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Here, Jesus talks about walking in the light, being in him and wants us to do good works etc…

rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, **if thou continue in [his] goodness: **otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

This explains how we are grafted into him because the Jews rejected Him.

luke11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Here, apply John 2:1, as it’s stated above.

Is not the last verse a prayer that Jesus teaches everyone including those allready born again

Yes!. I answered it above. ED O.

 

[krakee]

Ed, are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Hello Ed, I hope your evening is going well. I have asked you this question numerous times beginning all the way back on post #353. Your question about my interpretation of 1 John 3:9 wasn’t asked until post #912. You’ve already told me if a Catholic (Priest) simply read Scripture to you (John 3) that you wouldn’t believe him (Post #881). Now I’m not a Priest but I am a Catholic and because of your responses I feel we will get nowhere until we can establish authority. That’s why it’s necessary to start with my question to you.

Ed, are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

If you can’t answer this, I’m afraid my answer to you about 1 John 3:9 will be meaningless.

God Bless,

Matthew K (krakee)

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by krakee
Hello Ed, I hope your evening is going well. I have asked you this question numerous times beginning all the way back on post #353. Your question about my interpretation of 1 John 3:9 wasn’t asked until post #912. You’ve already told me if a Catholic (Priest) simply read Scripture to you (John 3) that you wouldn’t believe him (Post #881). Now I’m not a Priest but I am a Catholic and because of your responses I feel we will get nowhere until we can establish authority. That’s why it’s necessary to start with my question to you.

Ed, are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

If you can’t answer this, I’m afraid my answer to you about 1 John 3:9 will be meaningless.

God Bless,

Matthew K (krakee

Nobody is! Me or any one else. Only the Bible is infallible.
The salvation message is very clear and does not need to be interpreted. Mark 10:13 states, “I tell you seriously as I know how that anyone who refuses to come to God as a little child will never be allowed into his Kingdom.” There was no one infallible in the O.T.and the people got along well. The only reason the infallibility question comes up, is because the pope’s made that claim of themselves. Can you prove that they are the infallible interpreters of the Scriptures? What you are trying to do here is, something like which came first the chicken or the egg? -------Now answer my question, without panevino’s help. ED O.

 

[krakee]

Nobody is! Me or any one else. Only the Bible is infallible.
The salvation message is very clear and does not need to be interpreted. Mark 10:13 states, “I tell you seriously as I know how that anyone who refuses to come to God as a little child will never be allowed into his Kingdom.” There was no one infallible in the O.T.and the people got along well. The only reason the infallibility question comes up, is because the pope’s made that claim of themselves. Can you prove that they are the infallible interpreters of the Scriptures? What you are trying to do here is, something like which came first the chicken or the egg? -------Now answer my question, without panevino’s help. ED O.

Thank you for responding and for the record I accept that your answer is no you are not an infallible interpreter of Scripture. I’m relieved to hear you say that. You also say that only the Bible is infallible. My next question is how do you know? If I were someone who was completely separated from the world and knew nothing of God (resist the urge Ed) but then met you, how would you explain this to me?

This truly gets to the core of our belief and I’m honestly interested in how you would answer. In the meantime I will answer your question about what 1 John 3:19 means using only what you’ve set up as our infallible source.

I think 1 John 3:9 means that no one who is born of God will continue to sin because God’s seed remains in him. He cannot go on sinning because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who are the children of the devil. Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God nor is he who does not love his brother.

Do you agree with me?

I hope you have a great night Ed. Please keep me in your prayers as I will do the same for you.

God Bless,
Matthew K (krakee)

 

[The_Ambassador]

While I am no Greek scholar I am not using a Greek concordance. I am using Zodiahtes Greek Dictionary of the NT.

I am curious, if your interpretation is correct, why no Biblical Greek scholar has translated the word, eis, in this passage as you have. I am quite certain that they all know the nuances of Biblical Greek but they felt the word “for” was most appropriate.

I agree that the term eis is best tranlsated as “for.”

The debate is not over how to translate it, but how to understand it.

Jesse James is wanted “for” Robbery.

The way you would have to understand this, if you were to apply your reasoning here, is that Jesse James is wanted *in order that *he might commit a Robbery.

You leave yourself no other open option, when you deny the possibility of eis being understood as “because of.” This is why you are unwittingly distorting the gospel.

 

[izoid]

I agree that the term eis is best tranlsated as “for.”

The debate is not over how to translate it, but how to understand it.

Jesse James is wanted “for” Robbery.

The way you would have to understand this, if you were to apply your reasoning here, is that Jesse James is wanted *in order that *he might commit a Robbery.

You leave yourself no other open option, when you deny the possibility of eis being understood as “because of.” This is why you are unwittingly distorting the gospel.

Yes, but when you combine this verse with the many others that have been provided you can develop a reasonable theology on baptismal regeneration.

 

[DomineUtVideum]

Ed O, you said:

“Prior to the 16th century before the printing press was invented, God saw how the people were held in bondage. God’s timing was right on the mark. He inspired Martin Luther while at the same time the printing press was invented which made bibles readily available. As a result, by the millions people were freed from bondage as they were now able to read the Scriptures for themselves. I’m not clouding the issue I’m stateting historical facts.”

Martin Luther believed in and taught Baptismal regeneration. Was Luther in error on this point?

“You seem to imply exclusive protection of the Holy Spirit. What Spririt then guides the Protestants if not The Holy Spirit? We have Doctors of the church too and they disagree with your Doctors, as well as, your own Doctors who disagreed among themselves at the various Councils.”

Scripture teaches and the Catholic Church affirms that God cannot be the author of confusion. How, then, can the Holy Spirit inspire competing interpretations of Jn 3? Someone is in error, Ed. The Catholic position has been consistently taught in Christendom for 20 centuries. You still cannot produce the name of ONE Early Church Father or theologian prior to the 16th century who agrees with your position on this teaching; not even Luther, the father of Protestantism, agrees with you. Ball in your court, Ed. You have the burden of proof. No hard feelings … just "truth in charity."

 

[benedictus2]

That really, really surprises me! Krakee, I imagine that you go to confession in order to confess sin. Would you be so kind and explain what this means, 1 John 3:9, “No one is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. v10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who are the children of etc.etc.” What is your exegesis on that?

First let us put this in better perspective by citing here a little bit more than just one verse.

1 John 3: 6-10

No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him.

Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous.
**Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. ****No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. **In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother.

I think verse 6 puts your question into context. One has to remain in Him for one to be able not to sin.

If you are claiming that once you are 'born again" you cannot sin anymore then that is obviously not quite true.

I am sure you are claiming that you have been 'born again". and yet I am sure as well that you have commited sins after that time when you were first “born again”.

So therefore you must alternate between belonging to the devil and being a child of God.

I think you will find the Bible much more helpful if you will cease this practice of taking bits and pieces and hoping to come up with a whole theology on it.

Read the entire chapter. Believe me it becomes so much more alive and life giving when you do.

This chapter is actually about love… that we know we belong to God when we love.

 

[benedictus2]

Nobody is! Me or any one else. Only the Bible is infallible.

How do you know that for a fact? What you don’t realize is that by accepting the infallibility of the Bible you are accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church who was the one who determined the canon of the Bible.

Because if the Church is not infallible, then how do we know that the Bible is infallible since she is the one that determined which books are in or out.

If she is not infallible, then we are not really sure whether the books that were left out should have been included, and the books that were included should probably have been left out.

Even Luther and Calvin realized they have a dilemna with regards authoritative interpretation.​

In 1534, a radical apocalytic group in Munster set up an indepedent theocratic state based on a literal reading of scripture which licensed polygamy, condemned all violence and outlawed private ownership. This short lived experiment lasted only a year but it alarmed the reformers.

"If there was no authoritative body to control biblical reading, how could anybody know who was right? Who will give our conscience sure information about which party is teaching us the pure Word of God, we or our opponents. Is every fanatic to have the right to teach whatever he pleases? "-- Martin Luther

Calvin agrees.

"If everyone has a right to be judge and arbiter on this matter, nothing can be set down as certain and our whole religion will be full of uncertainty. — John Calvin.

(reference: :On the Bible" by Karen Armstrong)

 

[maraia]

Why are we wasting time with this person. He has yet to offer only accusations without substance. shake the dust off your sandals. He only wants to be a disruptor.
I see nothing being gained by carrying on this conversation with a recalcitrant fool.
Just my opinion. But I get a little tired of the Catholic bashing. How about you?

I agree with you in toto. Not only we are wasting our time but also allow the perennial fault-finders to fool us .Happy that you have expressed what people like me who have been exasperated.at fruitless arguements for arguements sake.
May our lord bless them.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Hi AwGusTeen Eph 1:13 states," And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal of the promised Holy Spirit. who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession."-----Doesn’t this tell me that I’m a Christian and sealed with the Holy Spirit and I’m assured eternal life? Yet it says nothing at all about "water"baptism. Doesn’t this contradict what you state above?

Only if one believes that scripture contradicts itself. I gave you the verses and it’s plain if you read all of Acts:

Acts 16:31-33 (King James Version)
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Further on in Acts we see…

Acts 22:16 (King James Version)
16 And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

It should be clear that scripture is speaking of water AND the Spirit.

I’m assuming that you are speaking of "water"baptism, if so, can you give me the exact Scriptures that tells me so.

Certainly:
Matthew 3:16 (King James Version)
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Rom 10:13 states, " Anyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved." Doesn’t this also contradict what you say?

Again, only if one uses proof texting and ignores scripture in context. For example, I can quote other passages out of their biblical context and thus create yet another interpretation of the way unto salvation such as:

Mark 10:17-19 (King James Version)
17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Using that approach, one could easily claim that keeping the commandments is all that is required for salvation.

AwGusTeen:

Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific as the Catholic Church teaches?

Yes! The Catholic church does teach that. However; the Bible teaches the new covenant in this way Mat26:28,“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Now Jesus said that!

Amen! As Catholic Christians, we believe that it is both Baptism AND the Grace of God (sacrifice of Christ) that we are saved. That’s not the argument here. The argument is whether Baptism is a required component of the salvation process - not whether it’s the only component.

Now your saying that Noah got saved by water. Yes, their physical bodies didn’t drown but Noah was saved prior to that. While he was building the Ark he was already saved for 120 years as is stated in Heb 11:7, “By faith, Noah warned (preached) about things not yet seen, in Holy fear built an ark to save his family, by his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” In plain English, he got saved by faith as we get saved by faith in Jesus. Paul states in 1 Cor 15:2, " By this gospel you are saved----"

I can see how you might think that if you hold to Sola Scriptura, but I think that is currently the topic of another thread. However, using your proof texting approach, I could ask you to show me directly in scripture where we are saved by faith alone. There’s only one place and you know where that is I’ll bet:

James 2:16-18 (King James Version)
16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

AwGusTeen:

John 3:5 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This was discussed many many times already.

Yes and I can see why…

(cont.)