"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Cluny]

Here is a direct quote from the Melkite Catholic Eucharistic Divine Liturgy:

<<Holy are You and all‐holy and magnificent is Your
glory: who so loved Your world as to give Your Only‐
Begotten Son, that every one who believes in Him shall not
perish but may have eternal life.>>

As you see, it is nothing more or less than John 3:16.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey Christian Sr, where are you at? I go to St Thomas Aquinas in Rio Rancho, archdiocese of Santa Fe.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Ed. I am going to ask this one last time.

Saint Ignatius of antioch, disciple of John the apostle, the guy that wrote that passage you want to so poorly exegete. Ignatius, the guy that was ordained by the apostles themselves as a bishop:

BEING mindful of your love and of your zeal in Christ, which ye have manifested towards us we thought it fitting to write to you, who display such a godly and spiritual love to the brethren,(2) to put you in remembrance of your Christian course,(3) “that ye all speak the same thing, being of one mind, thinking the same thing, and walking by the same rule of faith,”(4) as Paul admonished you. For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;”(5) and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;”(5) and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought(6) in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord;(7) and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all.”(8)

I agree 100% with what’s being said here.

He seems to think (as Paul and Peter already point out many times) that BAPTISM is what actually makes you participate in the blood shed on calvary.

What he’s not saying is that through baptism one becomes born again. That’s salvation my friend. That’s comes about only through the belief in Jesus’ shed Blood. When we participate in baptism we do so for repentance sake we die with Christ ( our old life) and we rise with Christ (to a new life) that’s participating in baptrism. In order to participate in the shed Blood one has to believe in Jesus. Baptism does not bring it on. When we believe the gospel that’s what saves us. When we are baptized, we repent (die) to our old life and our way of showing a commitment to our new life. Baptism does not bring on the Holy Spirit. Eph 1:13 by hearing and believing the gospel we are sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Why do you think his interpretation is wrong, when he was taught by John?

It’s not me that thinks he’s wrong, it’s you that adds to what he speaks about.

Who is your authority Ed?

Please don’t try to belittle me by implying that what I present here is my own personal interpretation. It’s what most protestants believe My authority is the Bible guided and taught by the Holy Spirit.John 16:13, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” And by having a personal relationship with Jesus, I pray for direction and guidance and I get answers. Something that I believe that you don’t quite understand.

Don’t say the word of God, because John helped write it, he told Ignatius what it means.
Who told you, Ed?

What you state here shows me how far you are removed from God. Listen to this which I believe with all of my heart. 1Cor.2:15,“But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who can’t understand him at all. v 16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lord’s thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by PRAYER. But. strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thought and mind of Christ.” That’s the difference of knowing that you are saved or think that you are saved. Must I say more?

And why are they right? Don’t go off on a tangent, answer the question./

QUOTE]
This may not be the answer that you want to hear. How can you really understand me when your hopes are going to purgatory in hopes of going to heaven. My faith is in His WORD which tells me that Jesus purchased (past tense) me with his Blood and I’m sealed by the Hol;y Spirit until the day of redemption. Eph2:6,“and lifted us (me) up from the grave into glory along with Christ, where we ( I ) sit with him in the heavenly realms----all because of what Christ Jesus did. v8 Because of His kindness you HAVE BEEN SAVED through trusting Christ.” You see! It doesn’t matter to me about Ignatius etc. I believe what I read and apply it, which feeds my soul and gives me all the faith and hope that I’ll ever need. Good night I’m going to bed. Have a good night! ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, first off, that’s not what most protestants believe. You are leaving out literally thousands of denominations. Don’t make your sect out to be an authority. It’s an opinion. A bad one. And the further on the timeline Protestants get from Christ, the more symbolic their opinion gets.

You say that being born of water and the spirit refers to earthly birth, and then spiritual rebirth. Yet the passge John 3:5 doesn’t speak of two births. It doesn’t say of water THEN the spirit. It combines the two: water and the spirit. And since all people are born, why even say that? Why not just say be born of the spirit? You say the baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from the water baptism, yet this contradicts Ephesians which states that there is ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Then Peter says to be saved you must “repent, and be baptized.” Problem though, Ed. The water baptism for you is one of repentance. That’s one baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is what saves you, according to your logic. So you are requiring two baptisms for the forgiveness of sins. That’s bogus Ed. You’re contradicting Scripture.

So what do we do with the Great Commission, Ed, how are we supposed to go about baptizing people in the Holy Spirit? Apparently, Ed, water baptism was important enough to mention before Jesus split.

Peter said that the baptism is what saved them, Ed. But it was a baptism that he was able to bestow. He could only bestow water baptism, Ed. You won’t find the Holy Spirit ever coming before baptism through another human being. Only God can work outside of His sacraments.

Acts 2:38 says repent every one of you and be baptized in Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and you shall receive the gift of the H.S. (not a direct quote, don’t slam me like you do poor Irenaeus)

How can baptism of the holy spirit be what is referred to above? Repent, every one of you, and be baptized by the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Does that make any sense to you, Ed? Apollos did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because he was not baptized into Christ.

You want to point out Acts 8:14-17. The apostles were sent because Samaria had become believers, they had been baptized, but they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. For crying out loud, Ed, think about this for a minute. It says in these passages that these people had accepted the word of God. That proceeds anything else, including baptism for you, Ed. That’s what comes first, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, right? And yet the Holy Spirit had not come down upon them yet. They were believers in the gospel, Ed, but they hadn’t had the Holy Spirit yet? According to YOUR belief, this means they weren’t saved yet, even though it just said they were believers and so they must have been baptized. Logically they should already have the Holy Spirit, right Ed?

To suppose that those baptized in Acts 8 did NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would deny that they were saved. It would deny the promise of Acts 2:38. And yet it is clear from the text that even though they had obeyed the gospel and were saved (Acts 8:12 and Mark 16:16), this passage reveals that there was another measure of the Holy Spirit to be received through the laying on of the hands of an apostle.

You think the above damages the Catholic position, but it doesn’t, it damages yours. According to Catholic belief, they already had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and were saved, but the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon them in the sense of Confirmation. According to your belief, they were believers, yet their belief didn’t bring about the Holy Spirit. So you have to necessarily deduce, from your twisted, assinine logic, that they were not saved even though the Bible says they were. Good luck Ed. Cry yourself to sleep, then wake up and become Catholic.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey Ed, to keep myself honest, it doesn’t say one baptism for the forgiveness of sins in Ephesians. That was a Catholic liberty taken on my part. It says one baptism. That’s actually even more damaging for you, because now you can’t wiggle out by saying you never said water baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. This really helps seal up the hole in my argument.

Ephesians 4:4-6: " There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called -one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (NIV)

One baptism period, Ed. Not a baptism of the Holy Spirit then a water baptism symbolizing it. Any way you cut it, it’s still two baptisms, hence contradicting Scripture. I’m really curious how you’re going to solve the problem of Acts 8 however, coughignoreit*cough.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Ed, to keep myself honest, it doesn’t say one baptism for the forgiveness of sins in Ephesians.

You’re right. However, if you’ll turn with me in your Bibles, (to make it easier for our n-C folks) to Acts of the Apostles 22 verse 16, you will find that it says that baptism washes away sins, (and that was exactly the gospel message preached to St. Paul at his conversion).

 

[Ginger2]

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22 Afterward Jesus and his disciples left Jerusalem, but they stayed in Judea for a while and baptized there. 23** At this time John the Baptist was baptizing at Aenon,** near Salim, because there was plenty of water there and people kept coming to him for baptism. 26 John’s disciples came to him and said, “Teacher, the man you met on the other side of the Jordan River, the one you said was the Messiah, is also baptizing people. And everybody is going over there instead of coming here to us.” 27 John replied, "God in heaven appoints each person’s work. 28 You yourselves know how plainly I told you that I am not the Messiah.

Why was John still Baptizing? If people were being Baptized in Jesus’ name at this point in time, Why wasn’t John Baptizing in Jesus’ name? If he had been, his disciples would not have complained Jesus’ was Baptizing more people than John!!

Why didn’t Jesus tell John instead of letting him continue in an obsolete practice???

 

[Tonks40]

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22 Afterward Jesus and his disciples left Jerusalem, but they stayed in Judea for a while and baptized there. 23** At this time John the Baptist was baptizing at Aenon,** near Salim, because there was plenty of water there and people kept coming to him for baptism. 26 John’s disciples came to him and said, “Teacher, the man you met on the other side of the Jordan River, the one you said was the Messiah, is also baptizing people. And everybody is going over there instead of coming here to us.” 27 John replied, "God in heaven appoints each person’s work. 28 You yourselves know how plainly I told you that I am not the Messiah.

Why was John still Baptizing? If people were being Baptized in Jesus’ name at this point in time, Why wasn’t John Baptizing in Jesus’ name? If he had been, his disciples would not have complained Jesus’ was Baptizing more people than John!!

Why didn’t Jesus tell John instead of letting him continue in an obsolete practice???

Not sure what you’re getting at here. Looks as though you’re supporting Baptism in John 3.

 

[crazzeto]

---

OK, account for this much of the text…

You will notice that baptism is not mentioned in this part. This is generally what is rejected.

This is my first post here, hi everyone

Anyway I figured I’d throw out my thoughts, baptism was indeed mentioned in the text you posted, though it just so happens I snipped your entire bible quote. I usually like to quote from the NAB anyway since it’s every where on the web which makes it very nice for quoting + directly linking

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXB.HTM

1

1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2

2

He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”

3

Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above.”

4

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

5

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

6

What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

7

Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’

It’s my opinion that the Lord is laying out the principals of baptism, as he has done in many other cases in the bible with out directly mentioning the object which is being discusses. In fact does John Ch 3 not also form the very basis of the Evangelical Fundamentalist views on being “born again”? That’s one theological view that we Catholics share with them, on can not enter the kingdom with out being born again of water and spirit, i.e. baptism. From here John Ch 3 does indeed them move on to discuss other topics of interest, for instance lost at the time on this Pharisee and his disciples is an early reference to his own crucifixion. But the fact that our Lord then, after laying out the principals for baptism, and then moves on and discusses his own end doesn’t negate the fact that he did in fact lay out the principals of baptism. Reenforcing this in my own opinion would be Matthew Ch 3:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVC.HTM

13

10 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.

14

11 John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?”

15

Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.

16

12 After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him.

17

And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, 13 with whom I am well pleased.”

At least in my opinion, you would have to try pretty hard not to see baptism in John Ch 3. But at least that is just my opinion, and I’m new to these forums and all. I think I’ll sit back and watch you guys chat it out for a while

 

[Ginger2]

At least in my opinion, you would have to try pretty hard not to see baptism in John Ch 3. But at least that is just my opinion, and I’m new to these forums and all. I think I’ll sit back and watch you guys chat it out for a while

I don’t think anyone is denying the need for Baptism.

I think the idea being discussed is whether one is saved thru water or spiritual rebirth caused by the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

As Peter said, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Water Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. It is not the water that saves, but the blood of Christ.

Water Baptism is our confession of Christ. We start with faith and God does the rest - a good work He has begun in us because we can do nothing apart from God.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t think anyone is denying the need for Baptism.

Well I’m certainly glad to read that I actually have heard of people who consider them selves very Christian, who have not been baptized and see no need for it due to over zelus belife in Sola Fide.

I think the idea being discussed is whether one is saved thru water or spiritual rebirth caused by the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

As Peter said, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Water Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. It is not the water that saves, but the blood of Christ.

Water Baptism is our confession of Christ. We start with faith and God does the rest - a good work He has begun in us because we can do nothing apart from God.

This is where we differ in opinion, batpism is not an outward visible sign of an inward reality. If that were the case my Christian friend whom was not baptised would be in the right having never been baptised, after all baptism is just a public statement of a change that already happend inside. If that’s the case, what’s more important, the public statement or the internal change? I guess that’s where I have a hard time with the logic being presented in this post.

As for Peter, does baptism save? Of course it does, it saves us from original sin, which was contracted from Adam (rather than committed personally). As Christ Jesus said, no one will enter the kingdom unless they have been born of water and spirit, so does batism save? You betcha it does, with out it we are not members of the body of Christ, and there for we can not enter into the kingdom. There’s no conflict with Catholic teaching here, baptism does save… It does not, however make you just “saved”, or in other words we Catholics do not agree with or support the teachings of Sola Fide and Once saved, always saved.

That’s a different topic all together and I already feel like I’ve skirted it’s edges in this thread a bit much. I’d hate to completely derail a thread in my third forum post here!!

 

[Ginger2]

This is where we differ in opinion, batpism is not an outward visible sign of an inward reality. If that were the case my Christian friend whom was not baptised would be in the right having never been baptised, after all baptism is just a public statement of a change that already happend inside. If that’s the case, what’s more important, the public statement or the internal change? I guess that’s where I have a hard time with the logic being presented in this post.

You are not understanding what I have said.

I am not claiming Baptism is merely symbolic. Water Baptism is definitely an outward, visible sign of our faith - people can see and witness our act of faith! But there is also a spiritual aspect that is invisible yet real. This has to do with the blood of Jesus.

The Bible is clear. We are commanded to be Baptized. But it is not the water that saves - it is the blood.

The public statement is very important!!

Rom 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1Jo 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

First you must believe. Faith in Christ Jesus is where salvation begins.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Luk 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

We are Baptized because we believe. But Baptism before the resurrection was a “shadow of the things to come” The shedding of Jesus’ blood perfected Baptism and cause the forgiveness of sin reuniting us with God.

Hbr 9:22 … without shedding of blood is no remission.

Ginger

 

[crazzeto]

You are not understanding what I have said.

I am not claiming Baptism is merely symbolic. Water Baptism is definitely an outward, visible sign of our faith - people can see and witness our act of faith! But there is also a spiritual aspect that is invisible yet real. This has to do with the blood of Jesus.

The Bible is clear. We are commanded to be Baptized. But it is not the water that saves - it is the blood.

Well I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest here, perhaps that Catholics are claims that water in and of it’s self will “save” you? That’s not the case, water, a substance which we drink in and of it’s self does not save.

What does cleans us of original sin though is the baptism ritual, which water is a necessary component of per our Lord.

The public statement is very important!!

Rom 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ginger2;5820799:

1Jo 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

My problem is the formula you’ve chosen, it really doesn’t logically follow. The formula, which by the way can be found no where in scripture puts all the emphisis on the inward reality. But is that were Christ put the emphisis in John Ch 3 which Cathlics are not ignoring but rather reading in context with the rest of Scared Scripture? I submit that Christ told us very directly that you must be born of water and spirit. If we look to Matthew we see just what he meant.

First you must believe. Faith in Christ Jesus is where salvation begins.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Luk 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

We Catholics do agree that faith is the beginning of the process of salivation, but we disagree that it is the end of the process of salivation. For your benifit, Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 161

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt3.shtml

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.

I wich the USCCB site provided anchors to the paragraphs but they don’t seem to. You’ll have to scroll down.

We are Baptized because we believe. But Baptism before the resurrection was a "shadow of the things to come

" The shedding of Jesus’ blood perfected Baptism and cause the forgiveness of sin reuniting us with God.

Hbr 9:22 … without shedding of blood is no remission.

Ginger

You won’t get any disagreement from a Catholic regarding the importance of our Lords Passion. With out the Passion the door to heaven could not be open to anyone. Prior to this point in time the best gift a pias individual could hope for from God was a long life and lots of kids, now we have something better to live our lives for, to live for ever in the presence of God and offer praise.

But, what I’m failing to see in all of what you’ve posted thus far is how any of what has been discussed in any way alters the Holy Sacrament of Baptism. With infant baptism the childs Parents profess the faith on belhalf of the child, the idea that a parent can do this is scriptually sound, I’ll post just one justification here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P11M.HTM

8

In the one case, mortal men receive tithes; in the other, a man of whom it is testified that he lives on.

9

One might even say that Levi 7 himself, who receives tithes, was tithed through Abraham,

10

for he was still in his father’s loins when Melchizedek met him.

Another, of course can be found all through out the new testament in terms of “whole house hold baptisms”, infants no doubt where baptised durring this process. I think maybe this is were your real hang up is, I think your real problem perhaps is that you don’t want to believe that one can profess faith for another whom is not yet capable of doing it them selves. In this case I would have you review Hebrews 7 along with some other passages (like house hold baptisms) and see how indeed the faith can be professed by the parents for the infant. Once the child grows to the age of reason, it becomse their responsibility to live their baptismal calling, hence the need for good catechism.

But ultimatly, at the end of the day it was made abundantly clear to us. No one, i.e. with out equivocation, can make it into the kingdom of heaven unless they’ve been born of Water & Spirit. The reason is because we were born of flesh, that is born of sin and death through Adam. In order to become a member of the body of Christ, and be given the chance to be saved we must be born of water & spirit.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ginger, first off, I really appreciate your posts. You are even-tempered even while you stick to your guns, and that makes for a downright fun discussion. As another Protestant mentioned to me, “iron sharpens iron.”

I’ll try and address your post in a small one, so I am not bombarding anyone here with 3 pages of Scripture like I was doing to poor Ed. He was probably doing well just to wade through half of what I wrote.

1.First off, belief is what saves us Ginger, yes you are correct. But all throughout the gospels, even in the passage of John 3, Jesus equates “belief” with obedience. It’s not merely believing in who Jesus is, it’s doing what he says, and what he said was to get baptized, do good works, etc. Catholics have a more “inclusive” idea of “belief” than Protestants do, and it’s closer to what Jesus had in mind if you are reading his words with bias laid aside.

1. You say it is the blood that saves us. This, again, is true. Where we slightly part ways, however, is that the Catholics are going to look at the many verses that say BAPTISM saves you. They are referring to water baptism. They even compare it to literal water baptism in the Old Testament. Paul talks about partaking in that blood BECAUSE of our baptism. The blood is what saves us, but the baptism is what applies it. That seems a good understanding, and a fair reading of the text.
2. You would respond they mean “baptism of the spirit.” I would respond that Peter seemed to think it was the baptism he administered that would save people. Why would Jesus tell people to administer a baptism right before he ascended when only he could administer a salvific baptism, then give them the idea they were being saved through the water baptism?
3. Why would Jesus keep letting John baptize? Because John was baptizing for repentance. If they truly are repentant, they will still be there when Jesus comes back out of the desert and begins his actual preaching of the kingdom. John will “become less.” Significantly, all of them will be rebaptized, as Paul did later.
4. Your exegesis of 1 Peter doesn’t fit. He JUST said that the baptism is what saves you. He is not going to contradict himself in the same sentence. You may respond that he obviously means faith; a pledge. Baptism IS the pledge, Ginger. Sacraments are a form of sacred oath-swearing binding us to Christ. You are also disregarding the fact that just prior, Peter compared it to literal water, with the Cloud over. Now since this new baptism saves you as that one did, are you going to disregard the salvific nature of the water? What happens if you take water out of the crossing the red sea? was there a baptism?
5. Finally, all your arguments violate Ephesians 4. In fact, I will call this “The Ephesians argument.” ONE baptism. Not two. If Jesus really did mean to be baptized by the Holy Spirit (as a separate phenomena), then he lied, according to Ephesians 4. He did, as you agree, require us to be baptized by water as well. So he is saying that we will require two baptisms, and violate Ephesians 4, also inspired. There is no way out of this one. IF you separate the Spirit and the water, you have two baptisms, like it or not. And even if you argue that only the Holy Spirit is what saves, that still does not negate the fact that water baptism is at least required. Yet Ephesians says only one. You might protest that God brought the Holy Spirit and yet they still needed a second baptism so this would refute my argument. This is not so, however, since God can always come upon people to make a point. He can always add MORE Holy Spirit. This only reinforces my point that the Holy Spirit coming upon people (especially in the form of the gifts) was not the same thing as a salvific baptism, as Ed often seemed to think. Proof of this is Cornelius. Peter was told to tell him what would save him , which we know would be the gospel and baptism. Cornelius had the Holy Spirit come upon him, but before Peter had gotten into his speech of salvation. God wouldn’t tell Peter to do something to waste his time. He still had to tell him what to do to be saved. Again, these examples in Acts are distinct from salvific baptism.

The only way, Ginger, to reconcile the Ephesians 4 argument is this: It’s not just water, and it’s not just the Holy Spirit. You are “calling on the name” of the Trinity, and pledging yourself through the water and the Spirit as one. Otherwise, it isn’t one baptism Ginger.

 

[crazzeto]

Wow Nathan, great post! By the way I second his early sentaments, I have the highest respects for anyone who can debate with maturity and intelligence.

 

[Ginger2]

Nathan, I can sincerely return the compliment! Your post is well thought out and supported with Scriptures as well as being concise!

There is much we agree on and I will respond to those items where there is still some question.

1.First off, belief is what saves us Ginger, yes you are correct. But all throughout the gospels, even in the passage of John 3, Jesus equates “belief” with obedience. It’s not merely believing in who Jesus is, it’s doing what he says, and what he said was to get baptized, do good works, etc…

We agree, Nathan. First one must believe. How can you say you believe if you don’t obey, as well? (James 2 )

Just as “good” works without faith in Christ Jesus find no eternal reward, faith without works is also dead.

1. You say it is the blood that saves us. This, again, is true. Where we slightly part ways, however, is that the Catholics are going to look at the many verses that say BAPTISM saves you. They are referring to water baptism. They even compare it to literal water baptism in the Old Testament. Paul talks about partaking in that blood BECAUSE of our baptism. The blood is what saves us, but the baptism is what applies it. That seems a good understanding, and a fair reading of the text.

There are not “many verses” that state Baptism saves. There is not one. The example given was:
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Look, it is qualified with the words, “calling on the name of Jesus”

Now look at Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Read the above verse carefully. As you stated, Peter is not changing his mind. He is consistent with Scriptures, be Baptized and call on the name of Jesus for salvation.

1. Why would Jesus keep letting John baptize? Because John was baptizing for repentance. If they truly are repentant, they will still be there when Jesus comes back out of the desert and begins his actual preaching of the kingdom. …

Jesus was already out of the desert and his disciples were already baptizing his followers.
By your reasoning, John should not have been baptizing any longer. He should have been sending people to Jesus to be Baptized.

(I skipped a couple numbers as I think they are covered already.)

Ginger

 

[crazzeto]

Nathan, I can sincerely return the compliment! Your post is well thought out and supported with Scriptures as well as being concise!

There is much we agree on and I will respond to those items where there is still some question.

We agree, Nathan. First one must believe. How can you say you believe if you don’t obey, as well? (James 2 )

Just as “good” works without faith in Christ Jesus find no eternal reward, faith without works is also dead.

There are not “many verses” that state Baptism saves. There is not one.

Yeah, when one says “baptism saves” it can only be said in the context that with out baptism you couldn’t possibly be saved, or enter the kingdom of heaven. Again as directly stated in John 3. It can’t, truthfully be said in any context which would suggest that Baptism is the begining and ending of being saved. It’s the first step on the long journey of your road to salvation.

The example given was:
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Look, it is qualified with the words, “calling on the name of Jesus”

Now look at Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

But won’t necessarly enter the kingdom either. Catch how it didn’t say he that believeth shall enter the kingdom?

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Read the above verse carefully. As you stated, Peter is not changing his mind. He is consistent with Scriptures, be Baptized and call on the name of Jesus for salvation.

But are we getting back to whether or not the inital profession of faith can be made by the parents? It can be, and yes of course then that child must grow in love and belief of God.

Jesus was already out of the desert and his disciples were already baptizing his followers.
By your reasoning, John should not have been baptizing any longer. He should have been sending people to Jesus to be Baptized.

(I skipped a couple numbers as I think they are covered already.)

Ginger

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Look, it is qualified with the words, “calling on the name of Jesus””

Response: I would point out that considering that when you baptize you do it out loud in the name of the trinity, baptism in itself IS calling on the name. Notice how the moment of forgiveness of sins accords with the baptism in the verse above.

“Now look at Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

1.Response: Notice how disbelief is contrasted with belief. By the rules of logic and grammatical structure, since belief and baptism are linked, those that disbelieve and are not baptized are not saved. he shouldn’t have to re-spell that out for us.

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

2.Response: This is the same translation Ed used, I believe. The actual underlined word is not “symbolize” in the Greek. In this case the NAB actualy has it right for once, and I usually dislike the NAB. Here’s the verse in context with a closer translation:

1 Peter 3:18-21: “For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the Spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the Ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

In the actual Greek the word is anti-type or fulfillment of type. Since the water was literal with the presence of the spirit in the Old, how can Only the spirit be present but not literal water? Again, Catholic Sacraments ARE a pledge. They ARE an oath. That what the word sacramentum refers to, is a form of sacred oath. They are sacred oaths that bind us to Christ, hence the number 7. Just being baptized in the name of the trinity IS making a pledge.

By your reasoning, John should not have been baptizing any longer. He should have been sending people to Jesus to be Baptized.

1. Response: I do understand understand your point, but it seems clear that John recognizes that he must “become less.” And since Jesus was leaving into the desert, John had no real reason to stop baptizing for repentance until Jesus returned. Again, all of his disciples were rebaptized anyway (assuming they followed Christ), so it’s irrelevant.

Acts 2:37-39
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

4.Response: The above seems pretty clear.

Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.’”

5: Since without baptism you are not buried into his death, no salvation.

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

1. It is called *baptism *in v38 after being in the water, not after the declaration of belief (which was made in v37)
2. I’m throwing John 3:5 in there again, based off of the “Ephesians argument.” (Which I believe is pretty good proof that the Holy Spirit and water are one baptism).

8.Ezekiel 36:24-27: “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”

The above is a messianic prophecy in the OT.Now if the water of John 3:5 is merely symbolic, why does the prophet say that it is the water which is making the individual clean from impurities and providing a new spirit to rest in him? One might protest
that this is merely in the Old Testament. But so were Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. In fact, in John 3:10 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen,” implying that Nicodemus should have known these truths from the Old Testament. Just like the Sadducees, we have another case of someone who, though very familiar with Scripture, missed its true interpretation. Now am I saying that baptism was practiced in the Old Testament? No, but I am saying that the Old Testament foreshadowed baptism and its spiritual effects — effects which apply to people both
in the Old and New Testament.

IN SUMMARY: All I’m saying, Ginger, is that yes, you can make some points. But when you take every single verse into account, your interpretation can be shaky. You still haven’t dealt with the Ephesians argument. In light of other Scripture, there can be only one baptism. The only way this makes sense out of Scripture and doesn’t make God a liar is if the baptism in Jesus’ name is water and the spirit. Suddenly all those verses make a bit more sense. Confirmation makes more sense. Ephesians makes more sense. You don’t have to do as many gymnastics to explain how jesus fulfills the OT baptisms of water and the spirit and yet not actually mean real water. No more craziness about “embyonic fluid.”

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Then after seeing how much clearer the Scripture gets, you plug in the early Father testimony, and you can rest assured you have an airtight interpretation backed by history. All I’m saying is consider it, Ginger. I had to, and when I was honest with myself, I had to become Catholic. God willing, you will too.

 

[nineofnine]

Hi Nineofine, Geometer is right. The Born Again tract that you describe here is on my post 174 full of errors. All those church Fathers add the word Again to born of water which is a violation of Scripture Correct “Born of water” Not Born again of water". ED O.

I wouldn’t get too worked up about them using the word “again.” A larger piece of the chapter reads:

3: Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [R] +]
4: Nicode’mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” [R] +]
5: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

“Anew” is pretty close to “again,” close enough that it could be translated that way. And obviously that’s the way Nicodemus understood it. So when the church fathers use the word “again,” they’re just condensing a bit, not making things up on their own. We do have to be born anew, and we do have to be born of water and spirit. So what if someone condenses that to “born anew (or again) of water and spirit”? It’s still Baptism.