"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[crowcounty]

Maria,

I think if you read the entire thread, you will be pleasantly surprised by the amount of Scripture I quote in entirety

My arguments are probably hard to follow because I tend to repeat myself so often with Ed that I don’t bother to requote, because he already knows what I’m talking about.

God Bless

did you do it lovingly?

 

[Michael007]

To my Protestant brothers please think. This verse mentions water. What else involving water is above Baptism? What else can this statement mean but baptism? Water isn’t mentioned much at all in the New Testament to my limited knowledge than Baptism which is the highest use for water. The verse also mentions spirit which to me makes me think of grace or the holy Spirit. Either way water being mentioned with Spirit makes water something pretty important. So water in this verse can’t just mean something we need to drink esp when in a desert. Water obviously means baptism.

Also, please do not make the mistake of taking one verse over any other verse. Jesus warned us about this in one of the Gospels. We are to take all of the verses together as a whole. Thus you can’t overestimate what is said in John chapter three and forget the rest of the Bible which gives you more information to consider when reading this chapter.

 

[Michael007]

I do not mean to sound insulting by saying “please think”. I’m tired and didn’t write that correctly. I just mean analyze the chapter.

 

[SteveGC]

To all who who have been watching Nathan’s and my posts. Please note, I’ve asked him several times to show me the Scripture that indicates water baptism infusions the Holy Spirit. He never does so.

Again, Ed…Jn 3:5. Nathan has posted that, among other supporting scripture, countless times. Your comment needs to be written this way*…“To all who who have been watching Nathan’s and my posts. Please note, I’ve asked him several times to show me the Scripture that indicates water baptism infusions the Holy Spirit. He provides Scripture which he believes does so, but I disagree with his interpretation of it, and opt for believing in my own interpretation of it”.* That’s the only honest thing you can say about your debate with him, Ed.

 

[krakee]

Maria,

I’ve read every single post in this thread and you hit the nail right on the head about Nathan providing scripture not to Ed’s liking… not your exact words. And yes Nathan was right by saying he had to repeat himself over and over because it seemed Ed just would not read his posts. Especially the posts which contained much Scripture. It got to the point that Nathan could just reference his earlier meanings because he had to post it so many times. Those of us following, except Ed, knew exactly what he had previously said.

That leads to the question asked by crowcounty, did you do it lovingly?

The answer is he did it more lovingly than a father who teaches his kids who don’t hear him. I reach my breaking point with my own kids quicker than Nathan does with internet strangers who don’t seem to pay attention to what he’s saying.

To Nathan and all those who have defended the Faith so well… THANK YOU!!

 

[EdOsiecki]

To all who followed Nathan and my debate

I say that we are SAVED upon the BELIEF in the GOSPEL. By believing, we are seal by the HOLY SPIRIT.---- Nathan says NO! Because the Holy Spirit is infused by water Baptism.

Here’s my Scripture proof, Eph 1:13, “ And you also were included ( I’m now part of God’s family) when you heard the TRUTH, the GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION. ( Jesus died, atoned for our sins and was raised from the dead). Having BELIEVED ( what? The gospel!) you ( which means me) were marked in Him with the SEAL of the promised HOLY SPIRIT.”

This tells me that I’m saved and I received the Holy Spirit. I then get baptized, (NOT to receive the Holy Spirit because I already have it by my believing), but to fulfill the act of righteousness Mat 3:11-15 which means that I’m repenting of my old life, and starting a new Godly life.

Acts 10:43, Peter went to Cornelius’ house and preached , v 43 “All the prophets testify about Him (Jesus) who BELIEVES in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name “ (not by water baptism) (if our sins are forgiven we are saved.) v44, While Peter was still speaking these words, the HOLY SPIRIT came on all who HEARD the message.

According to all of the above they were SAVED (sins were forgiven) and they also received the HOLY SPIRIT, Then they later were baptized, WHY? To fulfill the act of righteousness Mat 3:11-15 repenting of their old life and starting a new Godly life.

Nathan says they had to be baptized for the infusion of the HOLY SPIRIT. As you can see that‘s not true. Nathan either doesn’t understand plain English or he continues to mislead.

Nathan has no proof that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, while I show my proof by the two Scriptures above that the Holy Spirit comes by belief My comments in parenthesis to add emphasis only.

Acts 16:30-31 The jailer asked Paul how to saved he replied, “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved—”. John 3:16 BELIEF in Jesus will give us eternal life.

Rom 10:13, ”Anyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved. Rom 10:9, “For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and BELIEVE in your own heart that God has raised him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED”

Rom 10:10, “ For it is by BELIEVING in his heart that as man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

SteveGc
Again, Ed…Jn 3:5. Nathan has posted that, among other supporting scripture, countless times. Your comment needs to be written this way*…“To all who who have been watching Nathan’s and my posts. Please note, I’ve asked him several times to show me the Scripture that indicates water baptism infusions the Holy Spirit. He provides Scripture which he believes does so, but I disagree with his interpretation of it, and opt for believing in my own interpretation of it”.* That’s the only honest thing you can say about your debate with him, Ed

Hi Steve, I had hoped that you would have stayed away from this dispute between Nathan and me. You state that Nathan has posted countless times that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, can you show me at least one of them since he won’t do it. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“I say that we are SAVED upon the BELIEF in the GOSPEL. By believing, we are seal by the HOLY SPIRIT.---- Nathan says NO! Because the Holy Spirit is infused by water Baptism.” RESPONSE: Romans 2:13: “For it is not the hearers of the law that are just with God, but the doers of the law will be justified.” Abraham is saved by his faith, but it is a faith marked by dogged obedience. When Jesus says “repent and be baptized” in Mark, in the Greek it implies to “continue repenting.” I already showed how Jesus contrasted unbelief with disobedience, implying he compared belief with obedience, falling in line with the above. “Belief” and “faith” is much more than you are making it out to be. Belief is doing, belief is obeying. And who are we to obey? Christ. Christ said to get baptized. You say belief in the gospel is what brings Salvation. I disagree, because of they way you define your terms. The demons have mental knowledge of the gospel as well Ed. When asked what one must do to be saved Peter has this to say: Acts 2:38"And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” You can’t ignore this verse, when you quote others, you have to look in context. You also haven’t answered why Paul wasn’t saved until he was baptized.

Here’s my Scripture proof, Eph 1:13, “ And you also were included ( I’m now part of God’s family) when you heard the TRUTH, the GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION. ( Jesus died, atoned for our sins and was raised from the dead). Having BELIEVED ( what? The gospel!) you ( which means me) were marked in Him with the SEAL of the promised HOLY SPIRIT.” RESPONSE: Yes Ed, the gospel of repenting, and being baptized in the name of the Christ, and following his teachings. Don’t try and impose your own views of the gospel onto the text.

This tells me that I’m saved and I received the Holy Spirit. I then get baptized, (NOT to receive the Holy Spirit because I already have it by my believing), but to fulfill the act of righteousness Mat 3:11-15 which means that I’m repenting of my old life, and starting a new Godly life. RESPONSE: Paul and the Eunuch would disagree with you. So would the unsaved Samarians who believed but had not received the Holy Spirit because of the wrong baptism.

Acts 10:43, Peter went to Cornelius’ house and preached , v 43 “All the prophets testify about Him (Jesus) who BELIEVES in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name “ (not by water baptism) (if our sins are forgiven we are saved.) v44, While Peter was still speaking these words, the HOLY SPIRIT came on all who HEARD the message.**RESPONSE: The Holy Spirit can come down on whom He wishes, except he only does it in a couple cases, for a specific theological point (inclusion of gentiles, thief on the cross). Notice that the only cases when the Holy Spirit comes BEFORE water baptism is when God Himself directly intervenes. Another thing to notice, is apparently the apostles were surprised that he had the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Doesn’t that seem to imply something, Eddo? I’ve already covered this argument better and beat it to death earlier, so you ignored it again, and are only using it because you ignore the context of the other verses I supplied. **.

According to all of the above they were SAVED (sins were forgiven) and they also received the HOLY SPIRIT, Then they later were baptized, WHY? To fulfill the act of righteousness Mat 3:11-15 repenting of their old life and starting a new Godly life.RESPONSE: It says their sins are forgiven for believing in his name. I have already shown above what belief really means. Context context Ed. Notice they were also baptized.

Nathan says they had to be baptized for the infusion of the HOLY SPIRIT. As you can see that‘s not true. Nathan either doesn’t understand plain English or he continues to mislead.
RESPONSE: Plain English= "water and the Spirit."

Nathan has no proof that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, while I show my proof by the two Scriptures above that the Holy Spirit comes by belief My comments in parenthesis to add emphasis only. RESPONSE: I gave a buttload of Scriptures proving my belief earlier. You ignored most of them. Shouldn’t do that Ed, they are part of the Bible, after all…

Acts 16:30-31 The jailer asked Paul how to saved he replied, “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved—”. John 3:16 BELIEF in Jesus will give us eternal life. RESPONSE: See above regarding “belief.” Jailer asked what he must do to be saved. Paul told them the gospel, then baptized them. The knowledge of the gospel gives them the belief necessary for the baptism to be effectual when it is given. Given the earthquake and risk of arrest, Ed, I’m curious why the jailer was baptized without delay instead of waiting for a safer time. Perhaps because it was part of being saved? Perhaps because throughout I have shown that baptism is part of that belief?

Rom 10:13, ”Anyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved. Rom 10:9, “For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and BELIEVE in your own heart that God has raised him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED” RESPONSE: Hmmm…wasn’t baptism shown by a certain big time apostle to be equated with “calling on the Lord?” Hmmmm…See above regarding "belief."

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Rom 10:10, “ For it is by BELIEVING in his heart that as man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. ED O.
**RESPONSE: See above regarding “belief.”

This is getting old, Ed, and I will supply less and less Scripture, as you continue to ignore the massive amounts of Scripture I supplied earlier in the thread. You never did work yourself out of the Ephesians argument, by the way. You never explained why only God imparts the Holy Spirit outside of Baptism in the Bible, yet never the apostles. You never explained why belief is linked with obedience (and I know justification better than baptism, Ed, so if you ever want to start a thread on that, we can roll). You never explained why Peter thinks baptism is a fufillment of two other OT passages showing literal water with God’s Spirit and that it saves in “the same way”, and you have failed to show how this doesn’t have direct bearing on John 3:5. You have failed to explain why Paul wasn’t saved until he was baptized, though he had direct revelation from the Christ. You want to say baptism is by the Spirit, yet in the passage with Eunuch and Philip, it is not called “baptism” except when there is water involved. You frequently confuse your terms and fail to distinguish between the Holy Spirit in the form of the laying on of hands, and the Holy Spirit that is bestowed salvificly. You ignored the wordplay in the Greek in John 3:5 that Jesus uses that alludes to Ezekiel, which is a messianic prophecy speaking of clean water that cleanses the soul. You point to a passage where the gospel comes first, and then they are baptized, and think you have somehow won. You ignore the fact that Catholics believe that the faith in the gospel is necessary for the baptism to be effective, and so this does not refute our view. Paul not having his sins washed away until his water baptism, however, refutes yours. Ephesians 4:4 refutes yours. A lot of passages I have shown refute yours. You focus on some, you focus on others, but your theology is never comprehensive. It doesn’t give all Scripture its full weight. If it doesn’t, then it is false. God Bless, Ed.**

 

[chukm8]

To use one quote from scripture to tell people how they are saved is to ignore the many others ways one is saved. In reading the bible, take note of many quotes about how we are saved and then put them all together as all being necessary. In one place, for example, the bible tells us that “Baptism now saves you” and in another the rich man asks Christ," What must I do to be saved?" Take note of what Christ says to him. The bible is not as limiting as some readers try to make it out to be. The Catholic church pulls everything in and does not ignore anything. There are no blip verses for Catholics.
Hope that helps.
God Bless!

 

[MariaG]

Maria,

I think if you read the entire thread, you will be pleasantly surprised by the amount of Scripture I quote in entirety

My arguments are probably hard to follow because I tend to repeat myself so often with Ed that I don’t bother to requote, because he already knows what I’m talking about.

God Bless

Good! I absent myself from the boards more often than not nowadays, time mostly. But in my few days here I have seen a few of your posts and would have been shocked if you actually had not quoted pertinent scripture as Ed claimed.

Just remember though, Ed may be who is responding to you, but there is a huge audience who is reading.

And it will be here for YEARS!

May God Bless you and may He grant you the joy of seeing seeds grow
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Again, Ed…Jn 3:5. Nathan has posted that, among other supporting scripture, countless times. Your comment needs to be written this way*…"To all who who have been watching Nathan’s and my posts. Please note, I’ve asked him several times to show me the Scripture that indicates water baptism infusions the Holy Spirit. He provides Scripture which he believes does so, but I disagree with his interpretation of it, and opt for believing in my own interpretation of it".* That’s the only honest thing you can say about your debate with him, Ed.

That is what I suspected!

 

[MariaG]

Maria,

I’ve read every single post in this thread and you hit the nail right on the head about Nathan providing scripture not to Ed’s liking… not your exact words. And yes Nathan was right by saying he had to repeat himself over and over because it seemed Ed just would not read his posts. Especially the posts which contained much Scripture. It got to the point that Nathan could just reference his earlier meanings because he had to post it so many times. Those of us following, except Ed, knew exactly what he had previously said.

That leads to the question asked by crowcounty, did you do it lovingly?

The answer is he did it more lovingly than a father who teaches his kids who don’t hear him. I reach my breaking point with my own kids quicker than Nathan does with internet strangers who don’t seem to pay attention to what he’s saying.

To Nathan and all those who have defended the Faith so well… THANK YOU!!

Nice to know that even with so much time away, I can still figure out what is going on from just a few posts

Sadly, this story will be repeated again and again, but the servant is never greater than the master and we all just have to remind ourselves how often and how much worse our Lord was rejected, villified and lied about.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[EdOsiecki]

Poted by Ed with Nathan’s response
Nathan has no proof that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, while I show my proof by the two Scriptures above that the Holy Spirit comes by belief My comments in parenthesis to add emphasis only. RESPONSE: I gave a buttload of Scriptures proving my belief earlier. You ignored most of them. Shouldn’t do that Ed, they are part of the Bible, after all…/ Nathan, I don’t care about a buttload, PLEASE give me just one Scripture that specifically tells me that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by MariaG
thumbsup: Good! I absent myself from the boards more often than not nowadays, time mostly. But in my few days here I have seen a few of your posts and would have been shocked if you actually had not quoted pertinent scripture as Ed claimed.

Just remember though, Ed may be who is responding to you, but there is a huge audience who is reading.

And it will be here for YEARS!

Hi MariaG, since you went and read Nathan’ posts and found that he has supplied much Scripture that SPECIFICALLY tells me that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism, would you then please be so kind and show me at least one of those Scriptures. Perhaps I missed it. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

To all who are following Nathan’s and my debate

I’ve asked Nathan numerous times to show me ONE specific verse of Scripture that specifically tells me that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism. He never did. So I posted on 443 this Scripture to show him that the Holy Sprit comes about by the BELIEF in Jesus, and water baptism is not even mentioned.

Eph 1:13, “ And you also were included ( I’m now part of God’s family) when you heard the TRUTH, the GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION. ( Jesus died, atoned for our sins and was raised from the dead). Having BELIEVED ( what? The gospel!) you ( which means me) were marked in Him with the SEAL of the promised HOLY SPIRIT.” ( my comments added for emphasis only) HERE’S HIS RESPONSE ON POST 445:
RESPONSE: Yes Ed, the gospel of repenting, and being baptized in the name of the Christ, and following his teachings. Don’t try and impose your own views of the gospel onto the text.

In addition to the above verse, directly below it, I posted this, my comment in order to also clarify why baptism is NECESSARY thusly:

This tells me that I’m saved and I received the Holy Spirit. I then get baptized, (NOT to receive the Holy Spirit because I already have it by my believing), but to fulfill the act of righteousness Mat 3:11-15 which means that I’m repenting of my old life, and starting a new Godly life.

WHY IS HE TELLING ME ABOUT BAPTISM WHEN I ALREADY DID SO? WHY IS HE TELLING ME NOT TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS OF THAT SCRIPTURE? AM I SUPPOSE TO CHECK WITH SOME KIND OF A FORUM ON EVERY VERSE OF SCRIPTURE THAT I READ TO MAKE SURE THAT IT AGREES WITH WHOMEVER? Here’s Eph. 1:13, without my comment. If it differs from what I say, please show me where. “And you also were included when you heard the truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed you were marked in him with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit.” ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed. Once again you haven’t responded to anything. I already gave you the verses that show infusion. I have adequately demonstrated my beliefs in light of all Scripture you tried to use aginst me. You have not done the same.

Now you give me the verse that says trinity. No, Ed, not a verse that implies trinity, screams trinity, or actually has the trinity present, I want you to show me a verse that **says **God is a trinity. Those precise words. That is a ridiculous argument Ed. And it’s also a concept of God defined by Catholics, but I guess you would accept that doctrine but not the doctrine of infusion? Infusion is simple, Ed. God actually wipes your sins clean with the Holy Spirit interiorly, and makes you holy. This Spirit comes with the sanctified water. I have shown you many verses that demonstrate every aspect of this concept. You have failed to convincingly demonstrate the veracity of your own beliefs, let alone refute mine. Catholic theology covers every aspect of the Bible. Yours does not.

Over and over again, you ignore my posts. You can’t give the argument about not being able to respond to every single verse, because I have posted them so often you should have them memorized. That argument also doesn’t fly because I answer **you **on a point by point basis. It’s not just that you won’t do the same for me, Ed, it’s that you CAN’T. I’m sorry you don’t know enough Scripture in context to defend your beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that when it’s right in front of your face you can ignore it. That’s the equivalent of the ostrich sticking his head in the sand.

 

[SteveGC]

To all who are following Nathan’s and my debate

I’ve asked Nathan numerous times to show me ONE specific verse of Scripture that specifically tells me that the Holy Spirit is infused by water baptism. He never did.

Don’t know how many ways to say “John 3:5” to you, Ed. Juan tres, cinco? Hablas espanol?

How much more specific does Jn 3:5 need to get, Ed? Born again = Holy Spirit coming to a person, correct? Ok…Jn 3:5 says “born again”…"of…

…water and Spirit". Water and Spirit are unified to reveal that the Spirit indwells through water. Just because you don’t think this water refers to baptism is not our problem, Ed. It’s yours. You simply refuse to believe. To us, this is specific scriptural evidence that at water baptism, the Spirit comes to us.

So again, in all charity, it’s not that Nathan hasn’t provided you with specific scriptural evidence (especially in context with the entire canon), it’s that you don’t believe this is specific enough. We do. We think anyone else who’s reading this thread searching for answers would recognize that not only do things NOT have to be explicitly specific in order to be believed, in order to be true…but also that in context, water baptism bringing upon the Spirit is indeed revealed specifically in Jn 3:5.

 

[geometer]

I believe that Ed is on the right track. But regardless of what we might impose on a single word of scripture, we are called to know spiritual things. You can not know what spirit is with no experience of spirit. He has remarked that he had some experience with the Holy spirit. This should have been profound, judging by my own spiritual experience.

It is best not to suggest your own physics of what the Holy spirit accomplishes with not having been a witness to such miraculous events.

There is a scipture somewhere which states something like one must be born of spirit in order to discern spiritual things. Spirit has to do with the nature of existence spirit is the vehicle with which physical things pass in and out of existence. Spirit is more fundamental to physical existence than material.

If anyone can give us some background on their perceptions of spirit, we might be more confident that these positions taken here have some validity.

If anyone argues that spirit is simply a poetic term which is never percieved, then God help you…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Your position routinely sounds dangerously close to gnosticism, geometer. Your overemphasis on the spiritual at the expense of the physical is unbiblical, pagan, and not even close to a Jewish concept. It is also subjective to the point of being unworkable as a way of expressing truth. I would be extremely wary of any viewpoint that is entirely based on personal revelation fron God.