"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[panevino]

Hi ginger2
I am enjoying this thread
and am intersted to know if you agree with
the interpretation Ed O gave about John3:5
ie John 3:5 asv - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

EdO says That " born of water and spirit" is not a single thing/action but rather refers to 2 seperate events
1 born of water = natural birth from womb
2 born of spirit = when you believe in your heart in God

apologies If you allready answered this.
I respect your opinion
not looking to argue the point

thanks

 

[Ginger2]

Hi ginger2
I am enjoying this thread
and am intersted to know if you agree with
the interpretation Ed O gave about John3:5
ie John 3:5 asv - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

EdO says That " born of water and spirit" is not a single thing/action but rather refers to 2 seperate events
1 born of water = natural birth from womb
2 born of spirit = when you believe in your heart in God

apologies If you allready answered this.
I respect your opinion
not looking to argue the point

thanks

Young’s Literal Translation:
1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus his name, a ruler of the Jews,
2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come – a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.’
3 Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;’

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, ‘How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?’
Nicodemus obviously doesn’t understand what Jesus means

5 Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6** that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh**, and that which hath been **born of the Spirit is spirit. **
This appears to state a difference between water and spirit. I agree there is a difference - they are not the same thing. However, I do believe there is only one Baptism. I believe these two or three elements that were divided with original sin are rejoined in the resurrection of Christ

7 'Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, ‘How are these things able to happen?’

Nicodemus appears to be catching on to what Jesus is telling him, but asks how it is possible

10 Jesus answered and said to him, 'Thou art the teacher of Israel – and these things thou dost not know!
11 'Verily, verily, I say to thee – What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive;
12 **if the earthly things I said to you, and ye do not believe, how, if I shall say to you the heavenly things, will ye believe? **

(YLT is imperfect like all the other translations, but in many cases can be helpful when it uses more appropriately translated words)

I have never given much thought to what water is except where 1John 5:6 says, “This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.”

It seems “water” is not physical birth as “blood” indicates the human nature of Jesus.

1 John 5:7-8 There are three who testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

What are these three? (1 Jo 5:6 )
John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

The answers are here. But I cannot tell you, sorry.

 

[Ginger2]

“…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.

If someone doesn’t believe he would not get Baptized, because belief comes first. They are not necessarily done simultaneously. Baptism is a result of our belief. We are motivated to be Baptized by our desire for God.
If we don’t believe, that is the end of it. If we believe and are not Baptized with water God Himself, will Baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit before we enter heaven - just as Jesus did for the criminal on the cross.

“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.

Isn’t that what I have said???

Water Baptism before the resurrection is a shadow of the perfect Baptism when the Scriptures are fulfilled.

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.

But the verse I cited John is still baptizing after Jesus has come out of the wilderness and has started his disciples Baptizing converts. Since Jesus has begun Baptizing people why is John still Baptizing?

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 … 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." .

This is where I stop, as too many points all at once seem to be causing confusion as to who is saying what.

Ginger

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

" If we believe and are not Baptized with water God Himself, will Baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit before we enter heaven - just as Jesus did for the criminal on the cross."

Response: This is where I must emphatically draw the line. The “baptism by desire” in the case of the thief is a far cry from simply “not getting baptized,” which is what you seem to be implying. A willful rejection of the sacrament because you don’t truly think the water is necessary would be a mortal state of rebellion against God.

The precise reason the water IS necessary, is because the water is sacramental when administered in the name of the trinity.

Throughout you posts, like it or not, you are dividing water baptism from the Holy Spirit. You are stating that the belief is what makes you partake in the cross. No, the belief is what makes you get baptized, the water infuses you with the Holy Spirit WON for you on the cross. This is why in the case of infants, the belief of the parents and the Church substitutes, and the Holy Spirit is still infused through the water.

According to you, Ginger:

1. You need the Holy Spirit to be saved.
2. You get the Holy Spirit by belief.
3. You get baptized as a part of that belief.

However, again, you are separating water baptism from baptism of the Holy Spirit, and there is only one baptism according to Ephesians. The only way, and I cannot emphasize this enough, to escape this “one baptism” truth is if the Holy Spirit comes through the water. Can God work outside His sacraments? Yes. Can we when administering them? NO.

As a further point, your issue about John is irrelevant, and whether or not Jesus “would allow” further baptisms or not is beside the point. John even questioned again from his cell if Christ was the messiah. We have even less knowledge about what his followers believed, whether their faith waivered, etc. Jesus proclaimed His kingdom, and others can do what they wish, there will be consequences. Speculation about why Jesus “allowed” or why John “continued” etc is irrelevant because of one simple fact: John’s disciples were, in fact, rebaptized. And since other sacraments Jesus instituted were efficacious before his death, there is no reason to believe that baptism wasn’t, either.

And just to be clear, there are Catholics that argue that Jesus’ baptizing people was an institution, that was only to become effective after the cross. This would merely change Jesus words’ from what baptism DOES mean to what it WOULD mean. I do not buy this for reasons stated above as well as others, but irregardless, this does not change the fact that the baptism is sacramental after his death, and infuses us with the Holy Spirit. Belief in Christ is not what makes us take part in the cross and receive the Holy Spirit. According to Paul, the *baptism *is. The belief is what makes us get baptized, but the baptism is the exact moment that saves. There is a subtle distinction there.

As a final side note, baptizing with “fire” is recognized by many to refer to judgement. As in, he will save and he will judge, spirit and fire. Baptism refers to a pouring/immersing, not always the sacrament in every context. So hopefully, he WON’T baptize you with fire Ginger.

The answers, Ginger, you are correct, are here. They are right in front of you. Is it not conceivable, since you admit you haven’t thought what water means, that water may simply refer to water? Why would Jesus be so confusing about an issue of salvation? You can’t compare the water in John 3:5 with the living water of the Spirit, because Jesus contrasts the two. And it doesn’t refer to birth, or Jesus wouldn’t even have mentioned it. There’s only one other water, when it’s not the Spirit, Ginger, and that’s literal water. And if Jesus implied you must be baptized then, by water and the Spirit, then either he means 2 separate occurrences which violates Ephesians, or the water and Spirit are give simultaneously. This makes more sense, takes less twisting of the text, requires a bit more faith, and is truth. It may not fit Protestant theology, but it fits Jesus just fine. Combine that with the writings of the early Church, and what is there to argue? Think about it Ginger…

 

[geometer]

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

No the deed of baptism was not mentioned. You like all the others have reduced the problem by disgarding scripture. My position rests on all 21 verses, 1-21.

As I understand it being born again is to descend from heaven, born of God.

 

[utunumsint]

Matthew
19:16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20: The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
19:22: But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
19:23: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mark
16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1st Peter
3:21: 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.

 

[Ginger2]

" If we believe and are not Baptized with water God Himself, will Baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit before we enter heaven - just as Jesus did for the criminal on the cross."

Response: This is where I must emphatically draw the line. The “baptism by desire” in the case of the thief is a far cry from … A willful rejection of the sacrament…

Where did I say someone can reject God’s will and still go to heaven?

blood sacrifice, and circumcision were made perfect in the cross of Christ,…

everything before Jesus was a shadow of the things to come …

except Baptism? Baptism was perfect from the start?

Sometimes Catholics get so caught up in thinking they know the minds of non-catholics that they don’t pay any attention to what is said.

They argue even on points of agreement.

 

[crazzeto]

No the deed of baptism was not mentioned. You like all the others have reduced the problem by disgarding scripture. My position rests on all 21 verses, 1-21.

As I understand it being born again is to descend from heaven, born of God.

Do you believe John 3 and Matthew 3 compare? What about Ezekiel 36?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PS8.HTM

24

For I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the foreign lands, and bring you back to your own land.

25

I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

26

I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.

27

I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.

Edit
And then what about Nathan’s Ephesians argument?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10B.HTM

2 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;

5

one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

6

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[geometer]

Do you believe John 3 and Matthew 3 compare? What about Ezekiel 36?

And then what about Nathan’s Ephesians argument?

No, and no.

When he said that those born again come and go as the wind does, he was refering to his own appearance in the upper room before Thomas and the others.

He meant that which had happened to Philip in Acts 8, when he was caught up by the spirit of the Lord and the found on the streets of a nearby city.

He said no one has ascended except he who has come down from heaven, this is what you must do…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Geometer, that is a HIGHLY unorthodox interpretation, and does pretzels with the text. I think you would find yourself in the Protestant minority there.

Ginger, no I do understand, and throughout the dialogue there have been several points of agreement between you and I, and under no circumstance do I wish to minimize them. I truly seek your forgiveness if it appears that is what I am doing.

However, the line is still there. God can save outside of His sacraments, but when other disciples are the one administering it, the Holy Spirit comes through the water. The belief is what brings about the baptism, but it is the moment of baptism that actually brings the salvation of the cross. This is significant, Ginger.

 

[crazzeto]

No, and no.

When he said that those born again come and go as the wind does, he was refering to his own appearance in the upper room before Thomas and the others.

He meant that which had happened to Philip in Acts 8, when he was caught up by the spirit of the Lord and the found on the streets of a nearby city.

He said no one has ascended except he who has come down from heaven, this is what you must do…

That’s actually the first time I’ve ever heard this argument. Then again I’m a cradle Catholic and rather green when it comes to Apologetics (I’m sure it shows). What can I say, moving to the protistant bible belt was a kick in the apologetic pants.

Anyway needless to say I disagree with this interpetation of scripture. More over, I wager most our (we’re all Christian after all ) protistant brothers and sisters would also disagree with this interpetation of Sacrade Scripture.

 

[juliamajor]

I don’t think there is any more fish in this pond-this thread is all fished out.There is nothing that can be said that hasn’t been said-nor anything that you may say that will convince anyone.
Everybody can go back to their prejudices and hatreds and feel totally justified-that they have fought the good fight against -take your pick-evil Catholicism,evil Protestanism,heretics,apostates, pagans, wackos etc.That way we don’t have to listen to each other, acknowledge each other,work with each other.As we sit and throw pejoratives at each other the atheists and islamists sit and laugh as they slowly wheedle their way into the mindset and culture of the planet.Good job people! Screwtape would be proud!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Don’t worry, Geometer, I will not be so disrespectful as to blow off your interpretation with a wave of the hand.

John 3:8 is what you seem to base a great deal of your unorthodox interpretation on. Let’s look at the context a bit. I will be using the NIV for this passage:

John 3:7-9: “You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘you must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. Your hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” “How can this be be?” Nicodemus asked. “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and you do not understand these things?”

The english words “wind” and the “Spirit” in the NT are the same Greek word: pneuma. So when we read “wind” and “spirit” in this passage, we do so because translators have made the distinction for us based on context. The original readers would have only read one word: pneuma. So why does Jesus engage in this wordplay with Nicodemus? It’s because the grace of the Spirit is free, and mysterious in action, but nonetheless real, and men must believe in its reality. It is unseen and comes from an unseen God, but its presence may be recognized by its fruits.

There is no difference between being “born anew” and being “born of water and the Spirit,” but Jesus’ way of phrasing it was worded with Old Testament phraseology, most likely calculated to ring a bell in Nicodemus’ mind. If he thought it impossible to gain a new nature later in life, Jesus reminds him that God promised to do this very thing:

Ezekial 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.”

As you can see, this new Spirit/wind is *God’s *Spirit/wind, and would immediately pop into Nicodemus’ mind as a teacher of Israel. Jesus implies he should understand already, and if he does not understand these earthly prefigurements even though they spoke of cleansing water, how would he accept the heavenly words of Christ regarding the water and the Spirit?

At this point, the entire tone shifts away from a teaching to Nicodemus about baptism and focuses on Christ himself.

I’m afraid I would have to strongly disagree with your novel approach to the text.

 

[crazzeto]

Wow, and I hope no one thought I was trying to just blow off Geometer with a wave of a hand If that was what was picked up from my post then I apologize and ask for forgiveness. Rather my meaning was simply that I asked if he see’s the connection and he says he doesn’t. I’m new to all this, so I’m not quite sure yet how to properly guide someone through my thought processes.

Anyway…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

LOL no, I was referring only to my own post. It seemed a bit…dismissive.

 

[crazzeto]

lol, alright wipes sweat off the brow… I hate rude discussions particularly when they are about faith, I’d hate to come off that way particularly for no real good reason at all.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

No I just wanted geometer to know I wasn’t blowing him off. It always irritates me when someone dismisses one of my arguments, without actually saying why. It’s like saying “no, you’re wrong” then walking out the door. I looked at my post, and in the first part where I responded to Geometer, it seemed like that’s exactly what I did. So I elaborated

 

[SteveGC]

I don’t think there is any more fish in this pond-this thread is all fished out.There is nothing that can be said that hasn’t been said-nor anything that you may say that will convince anyone.
Everybody can go back to their prejudices and hatreds and feel totally justified-that they have fought the good fight against -take your pick-evil Catholicism,evil Protestanism,heretics,apostates, pagans, wackos etc.That way we don’t have to listen to each other, acknowledge each other,work with each other.As we sit and throw pejoratives at each other the atheists and islamists sit and laugh as they slowly wheedle their way into the mindset and culture of the planet.Good job people! Screwtape would be proud!

Actually, I think this thread is progressing quite productively, quite ecumenically. I normally join in the discussion, but have been happy to lurk this time around, and have enjoyed especially the current dialogue between Nathan, Ginger and others. I would wager other lurkers might agree.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Thank you Steve, it means a lot to me that other people may be getting something from this. Btw, I love your quote from Father Corapi.

 

[krakee]

There definitely are others. I’ve learned a great deal from this thread. Thank you to all who have defended the Faith so well.