"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Jacafamala]

Sometimes it’s OK to use a question to make a point or draw an analogy. But I reject your using Jesus to defend that tactic, as I have never seen anyone here use it as Jesus did.

Ginger

How then do you see the questions being used, Ginger?

There is only one verse I can think of when Jesus did not answer on the basis the Pharisees could not answer his question.

When he spoke in parables, it was the same way. When He spoke of the Eucharist, many left and He let them leave.

You should wait and be a little more patient. Let things ruminate. Are you interested in dialogue or are you on the fast track to provide all the answers?

 

[Jacafamala]

I think Ed emphasized Baptism of the “Holy Spirit” for clarity.
You have been claiming water infuses the Holy Spirit. Ed is pointing out your claim contradicts Scriptures.

I agree with Ed water has to do with the physical, but I don’t think it refers to our physical birth (if that is what he meant)

The NT tells us the old is gone and the new has come. Hebrews 10 is really great for understanding the old rituals were made perfect in Jesus.

Something changed drastically with original sin. All of the old rituals were compensating for that lost until Jesus reconciled us back to the Father.

There are three aspects of Baptism described in the Bible - but one Baptism.

Just as there is One God who reveals Himself to mankind in Three ways, their is one Baptism. This Baptism was incomplete before the resurrection, but made perfect in Christ Jesus.

John Baptized for repentance because that is all that was humanly possible, until the resurrection when Jesus reconciled us to God.

Ginger

The Church teaches Baptism with water is the usual way, but there are other ways: baptism of blood and Baptism of desire.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

That’s my point, Ginger. Ed added words to Scripture to “clarify.”

That’s exactly what the early fathers did with John 3:5, they “clarified” John 3:5 by combining it with John 3:7 and saying “born again,” never mind that their manuscript may have said these words verbatim. Ed doubts their clarification which is supported by the apostles that taught them and yet asks us not to doubt his theology when he adds a phrase where it not only doesn’t fit but isn’t in the chapter. It doesn’t exist… Not there in the Greek, so it’s just not there. Baptism can refer to many things, we don’t need Ed’s clarification. He is guilty of adding to Scripture a couple times now, so according to his advice we should deem him a heretic and proceed with the practice of shunning turn away to shun.

It really doesn’t matter, though Ginger, because Ed’s “clarification” is missing the boat entirely. When you have to add your own interpretation AND WORDS into Scripture to make it fit your theology, your theology is wrong.

Ephesians, for the last time, says there is only one BAPTISM. ONE. Jesus requires BOTH. BOTH. So either Ephesians is uninspired, Jesus is wrong, or the moment when the Holy Spirit baptizes you and the moment when the water baptizes you is the SAME moment, making it ONE baptism.

Notice that I don’t have to add Scripture for my theology, Ed does. I have plenty more Scripture, I have demonstrated that, Ginger, but Ed either ignores it or doesn’t understand what the implications are. He is seeing through “protesto-goggles.” So I’m showing him how his belief can’t even withstand the interpretation of this one verse. You can’t separate the water from the Spirit.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
Thank you Ed. You finally read my post.

Now this is where you really messed up:

“To Summarize: there is one baptism in the Holy Spirit…”

Nope. There is one BAPTISM Ed. That’s all Ephesians says. Not one “baptism of the holy Spirit,” it says “one baptism.” Don’t you dare try to add words in there after you freaked out on Saint Clement, that just wouldn’t be right

And the reason why you are adding words, Ed? Because you know I’m right. If you say the baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from the water, then Jesus and the apostles required two baptisms. The fact is, even if you’re right, and the Holy Spirit is the baptism that saves us, separate from the water, Jesus requires the “symbolic” water as well. This violates Ephesians 4, which states “one baptism.” Don’t read your theology into Scripture, Ed, take the text for what it says. You’re stuck. Please keep trying though, this is getting humorous. Only after you successfully argue yourself out of this one, single, verse, will I take apart the rest of your argument all over again

Hi Nathan, before you make an utter fool of yourself, ( 1 ) You can’t show me not ONE Scripture where it says that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism. If you could, it would be contradicting what Jesus said per Mat 3:15, that water baptism is a righteous act. If you don’t know what that means, Peter will tell you 1 Pet 3:21 “an appeal to God for a clear conscience—”.In plain English, we confess to God that we are a sinner (clearing our conscience), and baptism as per Rom 6:4 we identify with Christ, died/buried (dunked in water) to our old life and come up raised to our new Holy life, as Christ died and was raised from the dead.

( 2 ) In order for you to arrive at your bogus “one baptism” so called infusion of the Holy Spirit formula, you do much like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do, that is, you jerk one verse out of it’s context and then make spurious dogma with it.

( 3 ) Let’s see what’s going on in Eph 4:5, “One Baptism” . The first thing you must do, is to start at the beginning of that chapter. Capish (Italian for do you understand) From verse one on it speaks about living a good life, be humble. gentle, patient and loveable. Keep the unity of the SPIRIT. v 4 There is one body, one SPIRIT v 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. When v 4 is combined with v 5 we get ONE SPIRIT/BAPTISM. This chapter is speaking about the unity of the SPIRIT by one BAPTISM. That’s how we unify in the body of Christ. Water baptism isn’t even being considered.

( 4 ) So I’m not adding to Scripture like you maliciously claim that I did. In fact, Eph 4:5 one baptism DISPROVES your spurious claim that water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit. What this shows is that water baptism is peripheral. It’s not even being considered in the unity of the body of Christ. There’s only “One Baptism” that really matters and that is the baptism that John speaks of by Christ Mat. 3:11 and the Baptism that Jesus, Himself, speaks of in Acts.1:5 , Peter and John speaks of in Acts 8:15, Paul speaks of in Acts 19:5, the baptism of the Holy Spirit which came upon the 120 in the upper room Acts 2:4, and the baptism that came out of nowhere upon the people that believed in Acts 10:44. All of these baptisms contained NO WATER. The BELIEF in Jesus is what INFUSED the Holy Spirit upon them all.

( 5 ) Just like Eph 1:13 says,"—having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT. ----- NO WATER BAPTISM here at all. It’s MYSTICAL/SUPERNATURAL. If you care to refute what I say here, I won’t even consider any rebuttal until you first show me one Scripture that water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit ED O.

 

[kepha1]

Confirmation (Ephesians 1:13) is not water baptism. It is a related but separate sacrament.

for more verses on Confirmation, see http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html

It is St. Paul who wrote, when we are baptized we die to Christ. That is we go down into the water just as Jesus went down to the tomb, and all previous sin is washed away.

This is how the Blood of Christ works for our salvation. Just as Christ arose from the dead, we arise again as a new creature who has been born again of water and of the Spirit.

It is not water that cleanses sins. It is through the grace of God which is received through the Sacrament of Baptism that cleanses our sins.

It is in this way that the water baptism is symbolic of the spiritual baptism that is taking place at the same time through the receiving of sanctifying grace.

We renew our Baptismal promises on the following occasions:

1. when we received the Sacrament of Confirmation;
   2)At the Easter Vigil and on Easter Sunday service;
2. When we attend the Baptism of friends and relatives.

Even though we renew our Baptismal promises on those occasions there is no need for us to go through a second Baptism, because we have that indelible mark upon our souls that has already made us the sons and daughters of God. 1John 5: 5-7 Romans 6: 5-11; 13-14 Gal 3: 23-29 Ephesians 2:7-10; 4: 5-6 Colssians 2: 11-13

"In union with Christ we have imitated his death, we shall also imitate him in his resurrection. We must recognize that our former selves have been crucified with him to destroy this sinful body and to free us from the slavery of sin. When a man dies of course, he has finished with sin.

But we believe that having died with Christ we shall return to life with him; Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again. Death has no power over him any more. When he died, he died once for all, to sin, so his life now is life with God; and in that way you too must consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive for God in Christ Jesus." (Romans 6: 5-11)

“Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The Law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptised in Christ, you have all clothed yourselves in Christ and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of your are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3: 23-29)

"But God loved us with so much love that he was generous with his mercy; when we were dead through our sins, he brought us to life with Christ - it is through grace that you have been saved and raised us up with him and gave us a place with him in heaven, in Christ Jesus.

This was to show for all ages to come, through his goodness towards us in Christ Jesus, how infinitely rich he is in grace. Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God…" (Ephesians 2:7-10)

“There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism and one God who is Father of all, over all, through all and within all.” (Ephesisans 4: 5-6)

"In him you have been circumcised, with a circumcision not performed by human hand, but by the complete stripping of your body of flesh. This is circumcision according to Christ.

You have been buried with him, when you were baptised; and by baptism too you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead.

You were dead because you were sinners and had not been circumcised; he has brought you to life with him, he has forgiven us all our sins" (Colssians 2: 11-13)

The Sacrament of Baptism leaves on the soul an indelible mark which shows that all who have been baptised are the sons and daughters of God. This mark can never be removed from the soul. But that does not mean that we cannot lose grace because of our future sins.

Here is a question for you. If the Catholic Church is wrong on baptism, why does she accept most Protestant baptisms as valid?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“( 3 ) Let’s see what’s going on in Eph 4:5, “One Baptism” . The first thing you must do, is to start at the beginning of that chapter. Capish (Italian for do you understand) From verse one on it speaks about living a good life, be humble. gentle, patient and loveable. Keep the unity of the SPIRIT. v 4 There is one body, one SPIRIT v 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. When v 4 is combined with v 5 we get ONE SPIRIT/BAPTISM. This chapter is speaking about the unity of the SPIRIT by one BAPTISM. That’s how we unify in the body of Christ. Water baptism isn’t even being considered.”

Ed. I’m getting a bit annoyed that you keep insulting me. Maybe you haven’t quite caught on, but I am using only one verse because you don’t understand when I use more than one. I’m giving you small bites of knowledge. Anybody following this thread is welcome to read all your posts, then all of mine. I seriously doubt you come out smelling like a rose here. The only way you get “baptism of the Spirit” by combining verses four and five is by switching words around and placing them in different verses. What really, honest to goodness pisses me off is that you are being so disrespectful and snide, towards myself and the Early Church Fathers. Apparently you haven’t noticed that to get out of one tiny little verse that negates your view, you have to add or change Scripture, the very thing you accused the Fathers of. Since you are now on equal ground with the Fathers (according to your own logic and actions) I can go back to my original argument of why I should accept your testimony on the matter over theirs?

The simple fact, however, is that you haven’t escaped the Ephesians argument. The passage discusses the many things that bind us, baptism being one of them. Regardless of whatever attempt you make, you can’t argue yourself out of one little fact: we are supposed to be baptized by water too, regardless of whether you think it is more or less important. Even Ginger can admit that. She also admitted that she hadn’t thought about what water meant in John 3:5. I respect her for that greatly; it takes humility. That’s a quality you don’t have. Now since we can agree that we have to get baptized by water regardless of whether or not it is symbolic, either the Bible is requiring two baptisms and refuting itself, or there’s only one, combining water and Spirit. There are many verses, Ed, but you only take small bites, with lots of repetition, so don’t get mad that I’ve resorted to this.

Here’s the passage:

Ephesians 4 1-5: “I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received, (2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, (3) diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us. (4) There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope at your calling; (5)one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

Only you would choose the words you want to go together, then decry someone else for doing it. In context, all it says is one Baptism. Sorry you have to shuffle your words around. Nice try Ed. Keep at it!

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
That’s my point, Ginger. Ed added words to Scripture to “clarify.”

That’s exactly what the early fathers did with John 3:5, they “clarified” John 3:5 by combining it with John 3:7 and saying “born again,” never mind that their manuscript may have said these words verbatim. Ed doubts their clarification which is supported by the apostles that taught them and yet asks us not to doubt his theology when he adds a phrase where it not only doesn’t fit but isn’t in the chapter. It doesn’t exist… Not there in the Greek, so it’s just not there. Baptism can refer to many things, we don’t need Ed’s clarification. He is guilty of adding to Scripture a couple times now, so according to his advice we should deem him a heretic and proceed with the practice of shunning turn away to shun.

Hi Nathan, above you seemed to be doing much babbling. But since you consider me to be heretic, I’m very glad that I’m not living centuries ago, because being a heretic would have cost me my life (burned at the stake) Something I’m sure that Jesus never sanctioned.

It really doesn’t matter, though Ginger, because Ed’s “clarification” is missing the boat entirely. When you have to add your own interpretation AND WORDS into Scripture to make it fit your theology, your theology is wrong.

Still much babbling, babbling!

Ephesians, for the last time, says there is only one BAPTISM. ONE. Jesus requires BOTH. BOTH. So either Ephesians is uninspired, Jesus is wrong, or the moment when the Holy Spirit baptizes you and the moment when the water baptizes you is the SAME moment, making it ONE baptism.

You are correct! Eph 4:5 states One baptism. You are correct again in Mat 28:19. Jesus requires water baptism which makes two. The problem here is that you are still asleep. Didn’t wake up yet!

Notice that I don’t have to add Scripture for my theology, Ed does. I have plenty more Scripture, I have demonstrated that, Ginger, but Ed either ignores it or doesn’t understand what the implications are. He is seeing through “protesto-goggles.” So I’m showing him how his belief can’t even withstand the interpretation of this one verse. You can’t separate the water from the Spirit./

We have another problem here, that is, you are too brilliant and you can’t understand a simpleton like me. What is/are “protesto-goggles”??? Nathan, would you please explain what they is/are. But keep it short less/no babble! ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

That’s the problem Ed. You want more information, always more, but then you don’t listen to any of it. Then when I stick with one verse, you want more again. You’re very rude. Don’t write towards me anymore, because I’m done responding. I’ll let someone else deal with your juvenile foolishness.

Edit - And yes, Ed. You are a heretic. You are one that espouses false teaching. Save the Inquisition for another thread.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Jacafamal
The Church teaches Baptism with water is the usual way, but there are other ways: baptism of blood and Baptism of desire

Hi Jacafamala, you have a very good point here. Would please be so kind and expalin that to Nathan Wagar. He’s very hung up on only ONE Baptism. Thanks! ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Nathan Wagar
That’s the problem Ed. You want more information, always more, but then you don’t listen to any of it. Then when I stick with one verse, you want more again. You’re very rude. Don’t write towards me anymore, because I’m done responding. I’ll let someone else deal with your juvenile foolishness.

Edit - And yes, Ed. You are a heretic. You are one that espouses false teaching. Save the Inquisition for another thread

Hi Nathan, I knew that I would eventually trap you when I present the TRUTH. You can’t show me ONE verse that states that water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit. So what do you do? You cop/out! Thanks for all your babble! We are still friends aren’t we? I hope! ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed I will always pray for you, but if you’ve been following this thread, you can’t argue your way out of a simple verse. That verse in itself implies water and the Spirit. That’s the only verse I need. If you want more, read through the entire thread at all the posts of Scripture I and others have put up that you obviously ignored. If you really want to take joy in your false victory, so be it. I’m not going to waste any more time convinving you why you’ve already lost; it’s like punching a brick wall. I’m done casting pearls to swine.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

And one final point, your argument has already been addressed. Baptism by desire and blood are special one-time events in the case that someone dies before they can be baptized, hence relying on God’s mercy. God can work outside of his sacraments. The very reason these other two “baptisms” exist is because water baptism is necessary. Don’t try to use Catholic theology against Catholic theology Ed, it doesn’t work. It all goes back to the Ephesians argument.

AGAIN, every single gripe you have is answered earlier in the thread. do some backtracking, I’m done. God Bless.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Nathan Wagar
Ed I will always pray for you, but if you’ve been following this thread, you can’t argue your way out of a simple verse. That verse in itself implies water and the Spirit. That’s the only verse I need. If you want more, read through the entire thread at all the posts of Scripture I and others have put up that you obviously ignored. If you really want to take joy in your false victory, so be it. I’m not going to waste any more time convinving you why you’ve already lost; it’s like punching a brick wall. I’m done casting pearls to swine

Nathan, first of all I’m no swine. Secondly, you are adding into that Scripture by implying it means water baptism the very thing you falsely accuse me of doing. It’s not about what you add into Scripture, it’s what you are supposed to get out of Scripture.

Because the word "baptism is mentioned in Eph 4:5 you automatically assume it means water baptism. But the issue of contention is that the infusion of the Holy Spirit does not come about by water baptism. I’ve presented at least six or seven Scriptures in my post to show you that the Holy Spirit in infused MYSTICALLY/SUPERNATURALLY by the belief in Jesus and you still can’t see it! And the reason that you don’t, is because you have convinced yourself that water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit. It’s NOT in the Scriptures my friend. That’s why I’ve asked you to show me at least one DIRECT quote of Scripture that says water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit. You can’t because there aren’t any. Zero! Zilch! None! As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, your own Catholic bible The New American Bible in it’s side commentary disagrees with you. The Holy Spirit was infused MYSTICALLY/SUPERNATURALLY by the laying of the hands. ED O.

 

[krakee]

Ed, are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

 

[SteveGC]

Nathan, first of all I’m no swine. Secondly, you are adding into that Scripture by implying it means water baptism the very thing you falsely accuse me of doing. It’s not about what you add into Scripture, it’s what you are supposed to get out of Scripture.

Because the word "baptism is mentioned in Eph 4:5 you automatically assume it means water baptism. But the issue of contention is that the infusion of the Holy Spirit does not come about by water baptism. I’ve presented at least six or seven Scriptures in my post to show you that the Holy Spirit in infused MYSTICALLY/SUPERNATURALLY by the belief in Jesus and you still can’t see it! And the reason that you don’t, is because you have convinced yourself that water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit. It’s NOT in the Scriptures my friend. That’s why I’ve asked you to show me at least one DIRECT quote of Scripture that says water baptism infuses the Holy Spirit. You can’t because there aren’t any. Zero! Zilch! None! As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, your own Catholic bible The New American Bible in it’s side commentary disagrees with you. The Holy Spirit was infused MYSTICALLY/SUPERNATURALLY by the laying of the hands. ED O.

Ed, I think Nate has been providing this all along to you. You certainly disagree with him about it, but it isn’t as if he hasn’t said over and over that among other contextual scriptural references, Jn 3:5 reveals this infusion directly…

5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Not sure what you’re looking for, Ed…but this verse reveals the infusion reference you seek. It reveals it quite directly and explicitly. Again, I know you disagree with the understanding Catholics have about water baptism, but that doesn’t equate to the fact that scripture doesn’t reveal the infusion through water. It’s there. You simply disagree with it.

 

[CaterinaTherese]

Nate, if you will humor me one question. I have read this entire thread, and there’s something I’m curious about. Keep in mind that I am a Roman Catholic and I am honestly curious, I’m looking for some light to be shed, not to argue.

Ginger said “I am not denying the need for water Baptism. I am stating the Bible says the[re] is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood - Baptism was not made perfect/ complete until Jesus died.”

So I am curious here. According to your position so far, Nate, it sounds like you are saying that Jesus and his disciples (but not John the Baptist) were baptizing people in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (therefore baptized by water and Spirit, therefore eligible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven) during the time before the last supper. Would you then say that if one of these baptized people died during that time period before Jesus was crucified, would they go to Heaven? The only reason I think Ginger’s position sounds so reasonable is because it seems like only after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection could anyone go to Heaven. Would those baptized people who died go to wherever the Jews went (Sheol was it?) and then wait to go to Heaven with Jesus? I know the matter of Earth being inside of time and Heaven being outside of time makes things complicated, but I am honestly curious.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey, good question.

For my purposes it was irrelevant for the argument at hand because the fact for a Catholic remains that baptism AFTER his crucifixion was Sacaramental.

I have heard Catholics take both sides of the fence. I personally believe that Jesus’ baptism was effectual. John made a clear distinction between what he was doing and what Jesus was doing. If people were following Christ pre-resurrection, chances are good they got baptized. If they weren’t following Christ, then chances are they wouldn’t be saved anyway.

There are examples of Christ instituting Sacraments that were effectual prior to his death, such as the Eucharist. One has to keep in mine, the essence of the hypostatic union here. Jesus was fully human, yet fully divine. Just as God can apply the merits of His Son’s death to the OT sacrifices, cannot Jesus apply the merits of his own upcoming death to the Sacraments he bestows? Does he not have a preexistent divine nature? I think assuming that the baptism became sacramental only after his death does an injustice to Jesus, however unintentional. Hope that helps

 

[BenjaminLumen]

Alright, what is the name and why can it mean baptism?

It is meant as baptism in the Catholic Church,
The Priest says, “What do you seek?”
Catchumen, “baptism”

that is a profession of believing on the Name of Jesus , Believing in Jesus.

It being there is as valid as saying “I believe in the name of Christ.” It is assumed that
since you are asking for Baptism that you believe in Jesus, or you wouldn’t be asking Jesus to Baptise you through the Bishop/Priest. A Profession of Faith.

See.

 

[Ginger2]

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Nathan,The above verse shows several things, but two specifically related to our dialog:

1. Jesus did not Baptize the Apostles with the Holy Spirit during his ministry on Earth
2. Water Baptism does not infuse the Holy Spirit

See also, Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Above states they received the Holy Spirit before being water Baptized.

Ginger

 

[CaterinaTherese]

There are examples of Christ instituting Sacraments that were effectual prior to his death, such as the Eucharist. One has to keep in mine, the essence of the hypostatic union here. Jesus was fully human, yet fully divine. Just as God can apply the merits of His Son’s death to the OT sacrifices, cannot Jesus apply the merits of his own upcoming death to the Sacraments he bestows? Does he not have a preexistent divine nature? I think assuming that the baptism became sacramental only after his death does an injustice to Jesus, however unintentional. Hope that helps

So, does this mean you think they would have gone to Heaven right when they died? Or do you think the technicalities aren’t worth speculating upon because we can’t comprehend Eternity fully anyways?