"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonks40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ginger. I already covered this question. The Holy Spirit can come upon people as many times as it wants, since God is not bound by His sacraments. Regardless of whether or not the Holy Spirit came upon them however, they still had to get water baptism. Then I would refer you right back to reading John 3:5 in light of Ephesians 4:4. Also keep in mind that Peter was told what to tell Cornelius that he should be saved. We know from elsewhere that Peter’s message was baptism and repentance. So before Peter finishes his speech, Cornelius has the Holy Spirit come upon Him. Does this mean he is saved? No, because God would not waste Peter’s time and tell him to do something unnecessary. The Holy Spirit can work through a donkey as well, that doesn’t mean it was saved. Keep in mind that “baptism” can also mean pouring out, immersion, etc. depending on the context; it’s not always baptism in the sense of the rite of initiation, so it appears you are confusing terms. That the Holy Spirit would come down on the apostles is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the Holy Spirit comes through water as well, infusing. When reading John 3:5 in light of Ephesians 4:4, I would say yes. By what authority did the apostles drive out demons prior to Christ’s resurrection? The Holy Spirit that hadn’t baptized them yet? “baptism of the Holy Spirit” to a Catholic is confirmation. We agree that it had not fallen upon them. But you haven’t shown that *infusion *didn’t take place, which is what cleans the inside of the cup and makes them a new creature of God.
 
Posted by Nathan Wagar
The Holy Spirit can come upon people as many times as it wants, since God is not bound by His sacraments.
Click to expand...
You have no Scripture to confirm this statement. ( A ) When a person believes in Jesus per Eph1:13 that person is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. That doesn’t sound like the Holy Spirit comes and goes many times over. ( B ) The Holy Spirit is a " HE " the third person of the Holy Trinity, not an " it ".
Regardless of whether or not the Holy Spirit came upon them however, they still had to get water baptism.
Click to expand...
Yes! But not to receive the Holy Spirit as you claim by water baptism. It was to fulfill all righteousness. Repentance as John states in Mat 3:11, and as Peter states in Acts 2:38 (confessing they have sinned, asking for forgiveness)
Then I would refer you right back to reading John 3:5 in light of Ephesians 4:4.
Click to expand...
John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is not even mentioned there. Eph 4:4 speaks about the unity of the Spirit. That baptism could come about by believing as the 120 did and where baptized with out water. I would choose that baptism because I could hear the SUPERNATURAL effect the speaking in tongues and could see the SUPERNATURAL tongues of flames on their heads. In water baptism, nothing SUPERNATURAL can be seen or heard. The Baptism at Pentecost, or same in Acts 19:6, is the ONE Baptism Eph 4:4 speaks about. It unites our Spirit with God.
Also keep in mind that Peter was told what to tell Cornelius that he should be saved.
Click to expand...
Peter was only told to go see Cornelius. Peter had no idea why he was being sent until he got to Cornelius’ house v 34 Peter said, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show any favorites v 35 but accepts men from from every nation.”
We know from elsewhere that Peter’s message was baptism and repentance.
Click to expand...
Yes because he combined,belief,repentance, forgiveness of sins and baptism all into one message Acts 2:38 But we also know that Paul preached the message of believe on Jesus to get saved per the jailor. Doesn’t that alone make you question your theology? The jailor asked a very specific question, that is, how to get saved? What Paul did not say was to go get baptized he said believe on Jesus. Yes! they were baptized later to fulfill the act of righteousness. as Jesus states Mat 3:15 and later requires Mat 28;19.
So before Peter finishes his speech, Cornelius has the Holy Spirit come upon him. Does this mean he is saved? No,
Click to expand...
First of all, at that home were friends and relatives too, and they all YES got saved. Clear evidence of the Holy Spirit they spoke in tongues. Somethng water baptism doesn’t do. No Scripture for it. The Holy Spirit won’t reside in an unsaved person. Light has no fellowship with darkness. What you are trying to present here, is that later when they did get baptized, they now got Holy Spirit. What twice?
The Holy Spirit can work through a donkey as well, that doesn’t mean it was saved.
Click to expand...
Donkey’s aren’t supposed to get saved. At least I don’t think so!
The issue is whether or not the Holy Spirit comes through water as well, infusing. When reading John 3:5 in light of Ephesians 4:4, I would say yes.
Click to expand...
I would say NO! by what I mentioned above.
“baptism of the Holy Spirit” to a Catholic is confirmation
Click to expand...
After being confirmed and received the Holy Spirit, has any Catholic that you know of then spoke in tongues, as implied in Acts 8:17-19 and Acts 19:6 ? In my 29 years of being a Catholic, I never knew or even heard about the speaking in tongues. ED O.
 
Ed. don’t post to me anymore. Your time to have an intelligent, respectful conversation with me has passed. If Ginger wants to ask your exact same questions, she may do so, but that’s on her.
 
Posted by Nathan Wagar
Ed. don’t post to me anymore. Your time to have an intelligent, respectful conversation with me has passed. If Ginger wants to ask your exact same questions, she may do so, but that’s on her
Click to expand...
Nathan, I’ll respect and do as you want here. God Bless. ED O.
 
Ed, I don’t want to be a weener. If you can keep your tone civil, I will do the same. Your post above is a perfect example of what I enjoy, and if you can keep it like that we can do this.
 
40.png
EdOsiecki:
What Paul did not say was to go get baptized he said believe on Jesus. Yes! they were baptized later to fulfill the act of righteousness. as Jesus states Mat 3:15 and later requires Mat 28;19.
Click to expand...
Ed, I think one of Nathan’s contentions is that you are declaring two required baptisms here. The baptism of the Spirit upon belief. And the subsequent water baptism, which as you say is “to fulfill the act of righteousness”. Obviously you would say that the first baptism is required…are you saying the second one is NOT required? What if a person does not get water baptized after being baptized by the Spirit through their belief? If they are both required, then that’s two baptisms. I know you’ve addressed this in some form through other posts…but could you briefly summarize for me how these two required baptisms combine to form the ONE baptism Eph 4 declares exists? To me, it seems like a clever tap-dance to say that ONE baptism really means that two are combined into one. Perhaps that’s not what you’re saying. Perhaps you’re saying that the water baptism is not really required? Help.
 
I have numbered this so nobody gets lost.
  1. I think the majority of “speaking in tongues” is suspect, honestly. Two different words for “tongues” was used in Acts and Corinthians. One implies speech, the other “babbling.” The purpose of tongues was evangelistic, and the need simply doesn’t exist. The only time the Church has been able to verify actual cases of tongues spoken in an actual language was surprise with missionaries among primitives with no means of communication. Paul said these gifts would die out. The Holy Spirit gives many gifts, and this is how the Church views it. I think mine is a forceful personality and a deep love of Scripture and the Church, and it has taken hold since my Confirmation.
  2. The Holy Spirit, to more indepth answer Ginger’s question, is present all throughout the gospels prior to Pentecost. Jesus gives the apostles the power to cast out demons in his name and sends them out in twos. One might say “oh well that was just the power of His name.” Yeah, but prior to this, Jesus was casting out demons in the name of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the pharisees and the unforgiveable sin. Then Luke specifically says that Jesus gave this power to the apostles, so it implies more than just the “use of his name.” Obviously it is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Peter makes a pronouncement through the guidance of the Holy Spirit about Jesus being the messiah. Again, Holy Spirit hasn’t descended yet. After His resurrection, he breathes onto the disciples and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit.
The word Baptism refers to immersion, trial, and pouring, and can refer to water and the Holy Spirit.

What do all these things tell us? They tell us that the Holy Spirit was not only active prior to Pentecost, but that the baptism spoken of does not mean the same thing in every context. It simply can’t. It also tells us that apparently it was indwelling in the apostles prior to Pentecost, although not in the sense of dramatic presentation on Pentecost.
  1. The Christians in Acts 8 were followers of Christ, yet they had not received the Holy Spirit. This is not only the very thing (thing in the sense of act, not denying the HS’s personship)that is supposedly necessary to be saved, it is also apparent that belief was not enough to bring down the Holy Spirit, and it is also apparent that somehow, laying on of hands “completes” the process, demonstrating a difference between “indwelling” and “baptism” in the Pentecostal sense. This only makes sense if there is somehow multiple ways in which the Holy Spirit is present. Confirmation makes sense of this, belief in faith alone does not, otherwise they should have already had the Holy Spirit.
  2. Another interesting little tidbit:
Acts 18:24 through 19:1-7: “A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, an eloquent speaker, arrived in Ephesus. He was an authority on the scriptures. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord and, with ardent spirit, spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the Way [of God] more accurately. And when he wanted to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. After his arrival he gave great assistance to those who had come to believe through grace. He vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the messiah is Jesus. While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came [down] to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They answered him ‘We have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ He said ‘How were you baptized?’ They replied, ‘With the baptism of John.’ Paul then said, ‘John baptized with a baptism of repentance,telling people to believe in the one who came after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophecied. Altogether there were about twelve men.”

Notice something in the above. They were believers in Jesus, they were in Ephesus where Apollos had been preaching. Apollos even received extra training. So what was the problem? Why didn’t they get the Holy Spirit upon believing? So Paul asked a very pertinent question: he asked how they were baptized. They said with John’s baptism. That must have been the problem. They were baptized with water for repentance, but apparently that wasn’t enough, meaning that Jesus’ baptism isn’t what Protestants say it is. So Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus, THEN they can receive the Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands. This passage also demonstrates the difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the Confirmation of the Holy Spirit. Protestants either have to A: say they didn’t get the Holy Spirit at all until after they were baptized properly. Or B: Say they already had the Holy Spirit, (which they didn’t) and give credence to the idea of a Catholic style “confirmation” with the laying on of hands. Either way, it’s bad for their theology, works fine for ours.
  1. The above passage also lays to rest what Jesus meant by being baptized. He meant by water, because that’s what the apostles meant.
 
  1. The Holy Spirit only comes twice upon people that have not been baptized, and it was for a specific purpose. Again, God can work outside of His sacraments for a purpose, and then they promptly got baptized. The thing is, the only time you see the Holy Spirit coming from the apostles is when they have been baptized with water, or when they have the gifts of confirmation, which is AFTER they have been baptizedwith water. Coincidence?
  2. Acts 9:17-19: “So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, ‘Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength.”
First off, Jesus had already appeared to him, and Saul already believed. Why didn’t he already have the Holy Spirit? You can make the argument that Saul received the Holy Spirit in the above passage and then got his water baptism. I would argue no, because if he was going to receive the Holy Spirit, it should have been at the moment he believed, not when Ananias put his hands on him. That would only make sense in context of confirmation, which Ananias could not carry out since he wasn’t a bishop. Something else was missing, the baptism. Besides, Ananias said he was sent that Saul might receive the Holy Spirit. He heals him, then immediately baptizes him. This implies that the laying on of hands in this case was for the healing. If he DID receive the Holy Spirit from the laying on of hands, then the Protestant would be forced to admit that baptism is not by the Holy Spirit and in this case refers to water baptism. Why can’t the Protestant do this? Because in a different description of the same event, Ananias says it is the baptism washing away Paul’s sins. So the Protestant is forced to say that the baptism refers to the Holy Spirit, which has already been refuted above. The Holy Spirit doesn’t come through the laying on of hands prior to water baptism in the NT.

Acts 22:16: “Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling on his name.”

So the Holy Spirit can’t have come into Paul already in a Salvific sense, because his sins weren’t forgiven until he was baptized. That means that Ananias was laying his hands on Paul for healing, and notice how Ananias links the sins washing away with the moment of baptism.
  1. The above sets the precedent for Cornelius not having been saved but still having “received” the Holy Spirit. I have already covered this in an earlier post. It again makes the point that God works outside of His sacraments for purposes of altering Church history, and even then they weren’t saved until they got baptized.
  2. Now that we know that baptism refers to water, what do you think Jesus meant when he said “water and the Spirit” in John 3:5? I refer you once again to the Ephesians argument.
 
Nathan, I’m sorry to repeat, but I’m not sure if you missed my reply or if you don’t intend to discuss the matter further (it is mildly off topic, I’m sorry 😊 )

Comment 359: “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?”

What I was trying to say was, if their baptism was effectual, like you said, does that mean that they could go to Heaven (rather than “Sheol” or whatever the name of the old place of the dead) even before the resurrection? If so, is that because the Kingdom of Heaven is eternal and eternity is outside of time?

Thanks for any reply. If you don’t want to speculate, I understand.
 
Im very sorry I did not mean to blow you off, I was writing my magnum opus “super-post” lol. I don’t know how to correctly answer that, because I can in no way explain how the afterlife relates to us in a temporal sense. I would imagine they went to the limbo of the fathers and were guaranteed salvation, as Christ freed them after his death and resurrection. But honestly, how can you relate the two? They are on two different wavelengths. I would imagine they still didn’t go to heaven since in some way on a temporal level, Christ had to be crucified first. The difference is, what the early OT fathers had only a prefigurement of, these men had the full knowledge of the gospel and thus their salvation was assured.

It is an interesting question, and there’s nothing wrong with speculation. I truly don’t mind looking retarded as long as I get the truth eventually, and that’s what we’re all here for 🙂 I could be dead wrong on this, but I think there is a lot of evidence for my view, and it is shared by many Catholics. There are also Catholics that hold to the view that the Sacraments were only effectual after his death. I disagree. I think they were effectual prior to the cross for reasons I stated above (in an *eternal *sense), but that they attained their full significance *temporally *after the death of Christ.

Sort of like the Eucharist was the true body and blood of Christ, but it achieved it’s full significance and connection to Christ’s death in a *temporal *sense after Christ’s crucifixion. Yet it’s eternal significance is what allowed the sacrifices of the OT to be accepted through grace.

Hope that explains how I view it. It’s hard to explain because nobody can truly comprehend the intersection and parallels between eternity and the temporal plane. It’s also what’s frustrating about thinking too hard on the trinity.

God Bless.
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
Im very sorry I did not mean to blow you off, I was writing my magnum opus “super-post” lol.
Click to expand...
That’s quite alright. No kidding about the “magnum opus super post” lol. You obviously put a lot of time, energy and thought into your posts, I have enjoyed reading them.

Too bad no one seems to listen to your “by what authority do you interpret scripture?” argument, lol. As I read the thread I was frustrated along with you. 😃
Nathan_Wagar said:
I would imagine they went to the limbo of the fathers and were guaranteed salvation, as Christ freed them after his death and resurrection. But honestly, how can you relate the two? They are on two different wavelengths. I would imagine they still didn’t go to heaven since in some way on a temporal level, Christ had to be crucified first. The difference is, what the early OT fathers had only a prefigurement of, these men had the full knowledge of the gospel and thus their salvation was assured.

…] Sort of like the Eucharist was the true body and blood of Christ, but it achieved it’s full significance and connection to Christ’s death in a *temporal *sense after Christ’s crucifixion. Yet it’s eternal significance is what allowed the sacrifices of the OT to be accepted through grace.
Click to expand...
That does make sense, yes. I was thinking something along those lines, and you rounded out the thought well. Thanks.
Nathan_Wagar said:
It’s hard to explain because nobody can truly comprehend the intersection and parallels between eternity and the temporal plane. It’s also what’s frustrating about thinking too hard on the trinity.
Click to expand...
It’s a brain twister! No wonder we must be like little children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven 😃

God Bless you all too.
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
I have numbered this so nobody gets lost.
  1. I think the majority of “speaking in tongues” is suspect, honestly. Two different words for “tongues” was used in Acts and Corinthians. One implies speech, the other “babbling.”
Click to expand...
What two words?
 
The Catholic Church does not reject John 3. Because each of us MUST conform to the vision described by Jesus in accepting Jesus. And following His teaching.

However, John 3 is only part of what Jesus taught. It is not [for the lack of a better term] the FULLNESS of Jesus’ teaching.

Throughout John 3, Jesus gets a little testy and impatient, but the last sentence is telling and summarizes:

Jhn 3:21 But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

But, even so, there is much more.

For example, John 6: 50-70. [Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood … ] Which is also extremely central to Jesus’ and the Catholic Church’s teaching.

The other thing is that if you have time [LOL], study the Hebrew. The phrase “Son of Man” didn’t mean much to me until I came across a notation in some text or other, that it was “ben Adam”. Son of Adam. For me, that constituted a clarification and the light bulb came on.

It’s complicated and important not to fight to the death over an English translation that may not fully reflect the intent that Jesus had.
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
  1. Another interesting little tidbit:
Acts 18:24 through 19:1-7: "A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, an eloquent speaker, arrived in Ephesus. He was an authority on the scriptures. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord and, with ardent spirit, spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the Way [of God] more accurately. And when he wanted to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. After his arrival he gave great assistance to those who had come to believe through grace. He vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the messiah is Jesus.

Why didn’t Apollos get baptized in Jesus name?

NEW CHAPTER:
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came [down] to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They answered him ‘We have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ He said ‘How were you baptized?’ They replied, ‘With the baptism of John.’ Paul then said, 'John baptized with a baptism of repentance,
These disciples already received water Baptism for repentance.

telling people to believe in the one who came after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
being Baptized in the Name of Jesus has nothing to do with the water which is for repentance - this
Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophecied. Altogether there were about twelve men."
Laying on of hands was done to “infuse” the gifts of the Spirit - which would one day cease, because, as you said, they are no longer necesary

Notice something in the above. They were believers in Jesus, they were in Ephesus where Apollos had been preaching. … So what was the problem? Why didn’t they get the Holy Spirit upon believing?
I’m not sure they were believers in Jesus.
Paul then said, ‘John baptized with a baptism of repentance,telling people to believe in the one who came after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Why did Paul need to specify the one coming after John is Jesus, if they already knew? It was upon hearing this they were Baptized in Jesus’ name.

So Paul asked a very pertinent question: he asked how they were baptized. They said with John’s baptism. That must have been the problem. They were baptized with water for repentance, …exactly!

So Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus, THEN they can receive the gifts of Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands.
Click to expand...
Another thought that crossed my mind is those who were already Baptized for repentance did not need water to be Baptized in Jesus’ name. I have searched the Scriptures and only find those who were not Baptized for repentance specifically being Baptized in water in Jesus’ name.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the **remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. **

Ginger
 
Ginger, before I answer, I need to know the answers to a few questions so I know exactly where you are coming from, because this will determine my approach. Ed has a slightly different viewpoint than yours.
  1. Is there only one baptism of the Holy Spirit?
    If your answer is no to the above, then do you agree that the laying on of hands is a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit? If your answer is yes, then which of these baptisms saves?
If your answer to the original question is that there is only one baptism of the Holy Spirit:
Does this baptism save? When does it occur?
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
Ginger, before I answer, I need to know the answers to a few questions so I know exactly where you are coming from, because this will determine my approach. Ed has a slightly different viewpoint than yours.
  1. Is there only one baptism of the Holy Spirit?
    If your answer is no to the above, then do you agree that the laying on of hands is a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit? If your answer is yes, then which of these baptisms saves?
If your answer to the original question is that there is only one baptism of the Holy Spirit:
Does this baptism save? When does it occur?
Click to expand...
Laying on of hands is not baptism. It is the passing of Spiritual gifts to witness and evangelize. These gifts are no longer passed on since the last Apostle passed on.

There is one Baptism which has more than one part. Just like there is one God which reveals Himself to mankind in three ways.

We have a role in our salvation. God does not force us to accept Him against our own will.
 
So laying on of hands is not the saving “baptism of the spirit.”
  1. When does the actual, salvific baptism of the Spirit take place? At what precise moment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top