"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[panevino]

HI Ed,
yeah that goes without saying.
I understand the following of what you are saying.
in verse john 3:5 you seperate it as follows
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. NIV
ie: “born of water” being natural birth from the womb
& born of “spirit” being a true belief in God as in a spiritual baptism.
hope i got that right.

then you also follow that by reading john 3:6 as confirmation of this interpretation.
flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit NIV
ie: natural birth (1st birth) in the flesh is ‘born of water’ & 2nd birth is a re birth of spirit

hope i got that right.

on top of this you also consider the water component of baptism as merely a righteous act

however i note
Mat 3:15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. NIV - jesus seems to clearly say that the water baptism that will be given by John will “fulfill all righteousness”, sounds a bit more significant to me than merely a righteous act.

and then there is the versus that talk about burial with jesus in baptism and rising and washing.

• We were therefore buried* with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. rom 6:4 NIV

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ acts 22:16

• And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water*, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more acts 8:36 - KJV

it is offically called baptism in this verse after being in the water, not after the declaration of belief.

Hi Ed I’ve been unable to get back into this .
the woman took the child, and nursed it. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

I find your isolation of the water and seperation of it to associate it with merely an act and linked for birth of flesh uncomfortable
particularly when water is referee to in a salvific nature
god breathed on water in gen
water from rock
8saved by water
water and blood from Jesus on cross
Jesus participates In water baptism with John to “fullfill all righteousness” and then holy spirit comes
I also like the origin of the name Moses and implication to this discussion

given the above stony pictures
I find it to obscure that “born of water and spirit” is actually
meant to be “born of water” an insufficient thing of the fleshy
and then “born of spirit” being it
the water references to people you gave are a bit off in context don’t you think
ie :army of people etc , will read more though
I almost see your division as a concern for faith and works which is unwarranted

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Guess what Ed? I did a little digging. See, Jesus would have to have baptized somebody, if his disciples were then going about baptizing. So Jesus would have to have at least baptized one. It just so happens that Clement of Alexandria has this to say:

“Yes, truly, the apostles were baptised, as Clement the Stromatist relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes. For, in explaining the apostolic statement,“I thank God that I baptised none of you,” he says, Christ is said to have baptised Peter alone, and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest.”

So my above statement was correct, Ed. Jesus wasn’t baptizing people; not when the Pharisees heard about it. But He did baptize a person. However, my original argument still stands because the apostles baptized in His name so this is a non-issue. Food for thought Ed, you really might want to do some studying

Hi Nathan, I do a lot of studying. It’s the Scriptures that I study. Clement as well as other early Fathers many times had contradicted each other. After you did some studying, as you say, you come up with Clements who live at least 175 after Jesus’ time saying, “Christ is said to have baptized Peter alone and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest.”

Clement says, “it is said”.— BY WHOM? No Scripture anywhere to varify such a claim. That’s the very problem with so called tradition, it can’t be verified to make certain that it is correct. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Actually Ed, it says right in the quote who said it. And other people that are alive can verify if it’s true, and will call them out on it. I could easily use this very poor argument to decry the very validity of the Bible, and indeed atheists use this argument, Ed. You know why?

BECAUSE TRADITION DETERMINED WHAT BOOKS WENT IN THE BIBLE.

Until you really, honestly realize what that means, you are going to strike people as very schizophrenic with your arguments, because you will decry tradition with the Bible, the ultimate product of tradition. To deny that means you need to look deeper into how the Bible came about.

Essentialy, you’re heart is in the right place. I truly believe that and I just prayed for you today at the adoration chapel. But whether you realize it or not, you have backed yourself into a corner you can’t seem to get out of.

The Christian Church sets itself apart from just about every other religion, because it makes serious historical claims. You would divorce Christianity from history, and that’s why I’m trying to show you it doesn’t make sense.

You tend to focus on certain aspects of my arguments, and ignore others. That’s okay, but I am putting together some fairly cogent arguments, and I think you should do me the service of seeing exactly what I’m saying before you respond. They say the majority of people don’t really listen, they merely think about their next answer. I assure you, Ed, I am listening to you. Please listen to me. Because I have addressed every single argument you have made on a point by point basis, and yet you seem to use the same arguments that have already been addressed, without addressing them yourself.

I was immediately sorry after I said “do some studying,” because I know how it came off and that was truly not how I meant it, regardless of how annoyed I was getting. I ask your forgiveness.

God Bless.

 

[diggerdomer]

Clements who live at least 175 after Jesus’ time

I don’t understand what you mean by that, can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Another thing is that you seem intent on saying baptism is for repentance. And yet, aside from the fact that Jesus says “Repent, and be baptized” in Mark, Paul also rebaptizes people who were baptized by John? Paul’s explanation? That John baptized for repentance. So obviously Jesus’ baptism cant be the exact same thing, now can it Ed

Hi Nathan, A good try in circular argument but it does not work. You claim by baptism, one becomes born again. The only way that that can happen is that sins are forgiven, atoned for, and the person now has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If so, why didn’t that all happened in Acts 8:12 many men and women believed the message Phillip preached about Jesus and they were BAPTIZED. But vs 15 states that Peter and John came down and laid hands and prayed for these people who were already BAPTIZED for them to receive the Holy Spirit. According to you they should have receieved the Holy Spirit when they were BAPTIZED and were born again. Same for Acts 19:1-6 where you try your circular argument.

Also you claim that when Jesus was BAPTIZED, from then on when one gets BAPTIZED he/she then receives the Holy Spirit, Jesus didn’t think so. After His resurrection and He was about to ascend to heaven in Acts 1:5 He states, "John BAPTIZED with WATER. " he reminded them, " but you shall be BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit in just a few days. . ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, seriously. I already showed how baptism makes that atonement available to you. I showed you Scripture from the mouth of Peter and Paul. I am starting to uncharitably think you don’t know what circular reasoning is.

The word for “baptism” can refer to immersion, pouring, etc. So are you saying that after pouring out grace, God can’t pour out more? Are you aware of the sacrament of Confirmation that has its roots in Pentecost?

You focus on a couple verses Ed. Good for you. You also ignore a lot.

For instance, John the baptist said “Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” But he was baptizing with WATER Ed. So what’s the deal there?

Right from the beginning, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost, water and Spirit went hand in hand: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

No mention of blood up there Ed. That’s because *baptism *makes you a partaker in the New Covenant blood, as circumcision did in the Old, according to Paul. But I guess Peter and Paul made circular arguments?

In Acts 10:44, the first Gentiles to whom Peter preached received the Holy Spirit even before their water baptism. This is always possible, for God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them. In this case it was fitting for the Spirit to be given before baptism, in order to show God’s acceptance of believing Gentiles. Even under these circumstances, however, the connection to water baptism is still evident from Peter’s response: “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47).

Maybe this is why Peter said you need to be baptized for salvation. Maybe this is also why he referred to baptism “which now saves you.” Yeah, Ed, that same verse you took out of context and mistranslated, just like the ECF’s according to your logic.

You want circular logic Ed? I already pointed it out. You decry Church tradition based on the Bible, the ultimate product of Church tradition. That’s the DEFINITION of circular logic. You are very picky about your verses, and ignore the number one Protestant rule: The Bible interprets the Bible. So you have to look at YOUR verses in light of OTHER verses.

OTHER verses equate water with the Sprit. Other verses also refer to a baptism of the Spirit on Pentecost. Other verses say that baptism saves you. Other verses show people with the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (often distinguished from simply receiving it in baptism), and then PROMPTLY being baptized. Often, the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit is linked directly with laying on of hands and is shown by the presence of Spiritual gifts, Ed, which fits in fine with Catholic confirmation, not so hot with you. Wanna know why? Because what happens if you’re NOT “baptized with the Holy Spirit?” What if you don’t have those gifts, Ed? Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit subjective or not? If it’s an objective reality, then you still have to deal with the passages that say baptism saves you, and that Jesus baptized with water and the spirit. You, of necessity, must take a view that incorporates ALL of these passages, and you simply are not. If you have a verse that supposrts me going against a verse that supports you, your theology must make BOTH work. Instead, you make a theology based only on part of the Bible. That’s a bogus theology Ed. Whatever your denominational theology is, it is a walking contradiction.

You bash on poor Saint Clement, a martyr if memory serves, and yet you never wiggled out of the fact that Jesus had to baptize SOMEBODY, if those same apostles were to go out baptizing. Get real Ed. Don’t attack me with false claims when you don’t even seem to know what circular reasoning is, because that’s all you’ve been using.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Ed, seriously. I already showed how baptism makes that atonement available to you. I showed you Scripture from the mouth of Peter and Paul. I am starting to uncharitably think you don’t know what circular reasoning is.

The word for “baptism” can refer to immersion, pouring, etc. So are you saying that after pouring out grace, God can’t pour out more? Are you aware of the sacrament of Confirmation that has its roots in Pentecost?

You focus on a couple verses Ed. Good for you. You also ignore a lot.

For instance, John the baptist said “Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” But he was baptizing with WATER Ed. So what’s the deal there?

Right from the beginning, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost, water and Spirit went hand in hand: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

No mention of blood up there Ed. That’s because *baptism *makes you a partaker in the New Covenant blood, as circumcision did in the Old, according to Paul. But I guess Peter and Paul made circular arguments?

In Acts 10:44, the first Gentiles to whom Peter preached received the Holy Spirit even before their water baptism. This is always possible, for God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them. In this case it was fitting for the Spirit to be given before baptism, in order to show God’s acceptance of believing Gentiles. Even under these circumstances, however, the connection to water baptism is still evident from Peter’s response: “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47).

Maybe this is why Peter said you need to be baptized for salvation. Maybe this is also why he referred to baptism “which now saves you.” Yeah, Ed, that same verse you took out of context and mistranslated, just like the ECF’s according to your logic.

You want circular logic Ed? I already pointed it out. You decry Church tradition based on the Bible, the ultimate product of Church tradition. That’s the DEFINITION of circular logic. You are very picky about your verses, and ignore the number one Protestant rule: The Bible interprets the Bible. So you have to look at YOUR verses in light of OTHER verses.

OTHER verses equate water with the Sprit. Other verses also refer to a baptism of the Spirit on Pentecost. Other verses say that baptism saves you. Other verses show people with the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (often distinguished from simply receiving it in baptism), and then PROMPTLY being baptized. Often, the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit is linked directly with laying on of hands and is shown by the presence of Spiritual gifts, Ed, which fits in fine with Catholic confirmation, not so hot with you. Wanna know why? Because what happens if you’re NOT “baptized with the Holy Spirit?” What if you don’t have those gifts, Ed? Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit subjective or not? If it’s an objective reality, then you still have to deal with the passages that say baptism saves you, and that Jesus baptized with water and the spirit. You, of necessity, must take a view that incorporates ALL of these passages, and you simply are not. If you have a verse that supposrts me going against a verse that supports you, your theology must make BOTH work. Instead, you make a theology based only on part of the Bible. That’s a bogus theology Ed. Whatever your denominational theology is, it is a walking contradiction.

You bash on poor Saint Clement, a martyr if memory serves, and yet you never wiggled out of the fact that Jesus had to baptize SOMEBODY, if those same apostles were to go out baptizing. Get real Ed. Don’t attack me with false claims when you don’t even seem to know what circular reasoning is, because that’s all you’ve been using

Hi Nathan. You do well in writing much. Please answer me. In Acts 8:12 when Phillip preached about Jesus and the men and women believed and were Baptized. (1) where they born again? (2) did they receive the Holy Spirit? ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I already covered this in the laying on of hands and confirmation, Ed, of the very post you just quoted. You obviously haven’t read anything.

Here’s a question for YOU.

Why should anybody on God’s green earth accept your interpetation of the Bible over the Early Fathers?

And don’t give me that “because they misquoted” garbage. I already dealt with that and you mistranslated the Bible when you had it right in front of you. Do me a favor. Answer this ONE question.

 

[EdOsiecki]

NathanWagar
OTHER verses equate water with the Sprit. Other verses also refer to a baptism of the Spirit on Pentecost. Other verses say that baptism saves you. Other verses show people with the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (often distinguished from simply receiving it in baptism), and then PROMPTLY being baptized. Often, the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit is linked directly with laying on of hands and is shown by the presence of Spiritual gifts, Ed, which fits in fine with Catholic confirmation, not so hot with you. Wanna know why? Because what happens if you’re NOT “baptized with the Holy Spirit?” What if you don’t have those gifts, Ed? Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit subjective or not? If it’s an objective reality, then you still have to deal with the passages that say baptism saves you, and that Jesus baptized with water and the spirit. You, of necessity, must take a view that incorporates ALL of these passages, and you simply are not. If you have a verse that supposrts me going against a verse that supports you, your theology must make BOTH work. Instead, you make a theology based only on part of the Bible. That’s a bogus theology Ed. Whatever your denominational theology is, it is a walking contradiction.

Nathan, this is a lot of mumbo jumbo. Please tell me in Acts 8:12 After Phillip preached Jusus and they were Baptized (1) where they born again Yes?No (2) Did they receive the Holy Spirit? Yes/No. ED O.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nathan, this is a lot of mumbo jumbo. Please tell me in Acts 8:12 After Phillip preached Jusus and they were Baptized (1) where they born again Yes?No (2) Did they receive the Holy Spirit? Yes/No. ED O.

Yes to both

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, you just referred to the Bible as being mumbo Jumbo. You also are very disrespectful to the early fathers. You’re treading very close to blasphemy.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

And the answer, as the man above me posted, is yes to both. Reread the post in #167 Ed. You know, the one you quoted? All you can prove from the Bible is that God can send the Spirit outside of the water. That’s Catholic belief. You can’t, however, prove that the Holy Spirit DOESN’T go through water.

You have to be able to do that to negate my argument. The Holy Spirit can be poured out or “baptize” a person many times, as Paul refers to multiple instances. Yet YOU can’t prove that it DOESN’T come with water. Give it up Ed. You can’t win. Your arguments have all been addressed, point by point, and only about 2% of mine have. I guess that makes it easier for you to keep using the same, circular reasoning. And throw in an insinuation or two:

You read the Bible while I read Saint Clement.

Guess what Ed? I’m doing a simultaneous apologetic study on Romans, Revelation, and the gospel of John. Then Im going back over John in Greek as part of my Greek course. This is to show you that yes, Ed, I read my Bible. I also read what the early Christians wrote. Clement may have lived too late for your tastes, but you you never addressed my refutation of that argument. And you never pointed out why anyone should accept YOUR 2009 interpretation, when nobody back then believed it, and the founders of your version of Christianity didn’t believe it either. They would refute you just like I did, with the exact same passages, Ed.

 

[Jason_1977]

The above was stated in a thread on another topic by one of our forum members, and instead of derailing the thread, I thought I’d start one here to see if our wonderful Catholic members could refute him.

The topic was taking Scripture out of context, in which this member replied:

…in which I replied:

There’s more, but I want to get to the gist of the topic of this thread: Do Catholics reject John 3 - IOW, do we focus on particulars of this chapter as prime proof-text of the Sacrament of Baptism - or do we consider all of this chapter as declarations of the Truth?

I say we do and this text IS about Baptism along with rebirth into new life…but our friend feels otherwise

we reject it? really? Hmm…I didnt get the memo…must’ve come out some time between sacrificing a chicken & worshipping my favorite fire hydrant…I um, (ok, I’ll stop) yeah, rejecting john. Yeah. reject the gospel. and nobody told ME? Interesting. Based on the silliness of this claim I wish no further waste in effort in responding to this than I already have. SO, I bid you adieu.:coffeeread:

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Why should anybody on God’s green earth accept your interpetation of the Bible over the Early Fathers?

Nathan, you seem to imply that what I write is my personal interpretation which is baloney. This is what’s being taught among various protestant denominations. The real reason you do that is to belittle me.

And don’t give me that “because they misquoted” garbage. I already dealt with that and you mistranslated the Bible when you had it right in front of you. Do me a favor. Answer this ONE question

Why are you so upset when I present the truth. I didn’t give you any misquoted “garbage” as you falsely accuse me of, here it is again copied verbatim from Catholic web page.

Irenaeus: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” ------ (Jesus said born of water not born AGAIN of water) We are warned not to add to or subtract from Scriptures per Prov. 30:6, Duet 4:2 & 12:32, 1Cor 4:6,Rev 22:19 190 A.D.

Tertullian; misquotes Jesus, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life.” 203 A.D.

Hippolytus: “If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God.” ??? 217 A. D

Clement: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (again is added) 221 A.D.

Cyprian of Carthage: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (again is added) 253 A.D.

Council of Carthage VII: misquotes Jesus, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (again is added) 256 A.D.

Cyril of Jerusalem: He makes one verse out of two. He combines Jh 3:3 with 3;5. which is basically what all of the above are doing also. 350 A.D.

Basil the Great: misquotes Jesus, This then is what it means to be “born again of water and Spirit.” (again is added) 375 A.D.

Ambrose of Milan: misquotes Jesus, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (again is added) 381 A.D.

Gregory of Nyssa: "in the birth by water and the Spirit(Jesus) himself led the way in this birth etc, etc. In essence what he is saying since Jesus was baptized as the firstborn so then shall we be. ( Yes we are to be baptized but not to count on it to save us) 382 A.D.

Augustine: misquotes Jesus, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” (again is added) 412 A.D.

IMPRIMATUR Robert H. Bron Bishop of San Diego August 10,2004

Jesus said, "------no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. All of the above Fathers are being quoted "born AGAIN of water ,and the Spirit’. They are adding the word AGAIN to Scripture which is a violation. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I already covered that Ed. You even stated you saw my point.

You, on the other hand, mistranslated a passage when that word “symbolize” didn’t even EXIST in the Greek, then you ripped the verse itself out of context to try to support your viewpoint, which it did not.

“Nathan, you seem to imply that what I write is my personal interpretation which is baloney. This is what’s being taught among various protestant denominations. The real reason you do that is to belittle me.”

I’m not belittling you Ed, you belittle the fathers. I actually have quite a bit of respect for you, once you stated your age. However, the fathers are older than both of us Ed, yet you show them no respect whatsoever. I consider you a separated brother in Christ. That doesn’t mean you can’t be wrong. So let me rephrase my argument. Why would anybody choose your denomination’s interpretation (Im guessing evangelical, sometime in the 1800’s most likely, a breakoff of the anabaptist movement), as opposed to 1700-1800 years closer to the source?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Ed, you just referred to the Bible as being mumbo Jumbo. You also are very disrespectful to the early fathers. You’re treading very close to blasphemy

Boy! when you can’t win a discussion with Scripture, you then attack the messenger (me) Let me remind you, when I first came onto this forum and because I believe in Sola Scripture, a whole heard came out and attacked me and called the bible the " do it yourself book" and “do it yourself philosophy” So when you accuse me of blasphemy, it doesn’t surprise me. God knows better. It’s His Word that I’m defending. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

And since I know you are going to ignore the above post, let’s look at your pet passage just one more time. Philip isn’t a bishop, Ed. He doesn’t hold that office. So the confirmation of the Holy Spirit, the “laying on of hands” is done by the Bishop, as it is to this day. Baptism can be done by a priest. Back then, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were necessary for the spreading of the gospel. Baptism was completed by confirmation, the laying on of hands. Since they had not received the Holy Spirit as being a pouring out of the gifts as in Pentecost, bishops needed to confirm the believers. However, as I stated again, the Holy Spirit can be poured out more than once, Ed, according to Paul’s statements.

Receiving the Holy Spirit in Baptism isn’t quite as “dramatic” as the Spiritual gifts imparted by laying on the hands. And you still haven’t dealt with this fact, Ed: John the baptist said that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, unlike John. Yet Jesus baptized with WATER. He HAD to baptize at least one of his disciples, because He would not send unbaptized people to baptize in His name, which is BY THE HOLY SPIRIT according to John. We also have extrabiblical testimony by early Christians that support this logical deduction. Even if you choose to ingore this testimony, it does not negate the original argument. You’re stuck, Ed. By the Bible alone.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

As for other people attacking you, I’m very sorry if what you say is true. However, I imagine it’s because of poor exegesis, circular reasoning, ignoring key points in the other person’s arguments, and your OWN personal attacks that actually do cross the line.

Calling someone a “proud peacock” and insinuating that they don’t read Scripture is a personal attack. Warning you that you approach blasphemy is not. I can be very charitable Ed, but you don’t argue charitably, and it can irritate people. There’s a reason why Catholics have left this thread, yet they discuss things with other Protestants every day. It’s because you can be rude, Ed. It’s because you don’t really read or pay attention to other peoples’ posts. When they answer your questions, you ignore them, then use those same statements/questions for your argument further down the line. I have never had to repost the same thing so much as I have had to with you. That in itself says something.

And making yourself out to be a “martyr” that merely preaches the word of God isn’t going to cut it with me. You already insulted REAL martyrs, Ed. And they didn’t think like you.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
And the answer, as the man above me posted, is yes to both.

Nathan, what does this really mean? “for it had not yet fallen upon any of them” It meaning the Holy Spirit by the way the Holy Spirit is a HE not an IT . New American Catholic Bible bad translation. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Just answered you Ed. Follow the arrow up. Blessings in Christ, Nate