"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[benedictus2]

You can’t use the epistles of Paul to try and negate Jesus.

Too right. Something very common with protestants. You tell them Jesus said this and they reply, but Paul said this. As if Paul would completely refute what Jesus is saying.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by benedictus2
In Jesus’s time the only baptism they know is water baptism because that is what the term baptism actually means

How come Jesus didn’t know that when he said, in Acts 1:5, " For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." the end result of the latter was no water but fire on the heads on the 120 people and various languages. ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ed, immersion isn’t the same thing as indwelling. The Greek word for baptism is used in several different contexts, anything from pouring to immersing. So if you are looking at the fact that there are multiple baptisms of the Holy Spirit, then logically you have to conclude that at some point, one of those is salvific. Given all the Scripture I have shown (including one that you just recently unintentionally posted) linking water and the forgiveness of sins, it makes sense to conclude that the one of these many “baptisms” of the Spirit that actually saved was the one with water, since unless God directly intervened Himself, this was the first baptism. Even when God did intervene, it is not even clear that it was always in a salvific sense, *however *this is beside the point since we believe God can work outside of his sacraments.

The only way YOU would have a point is if you could point out somebody that received the Holy Spirit from an apostle PRIOR to being water baptized. You won’t find it. This lends credence to the Catholic view that when Jesus gave the apostles the power to baptize, it was with the Holy Spirit but through water, since they are never shown laying hands prior to water baptism. Besides, Ed, if the laying on of hands is the infusing of the Holy Spirit as you have contradictorily said, then that assumes they haven’t received the Holy Spirit upon belief. Either way you are caught. I think you are confusing the terms.

 

[Bob4BVM]

There’s no such thing as “batismal regineration”, John 3;5 does not speak of water baptism. That’s Catholic theology. I suggest you that you read further down in John and read John 3:16 We are reginerated by belief in Jesus, as in Acts 10:44, Acts 16:3, Rom 10:13 and many more Eph 1:13 spells it out quite adequately, point by point with out water baptism. ED O.

Ed,
I have to wonder, WHAT is the basic reason for your rejection of Baptism as means for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit ? I’ve seen enough of how you try to make scripture fit this rejection—my question is, why do you find it necessary to debate it at all ?
What in the world do you think Jesus was doing when He insisted that John baptize HIM ?
Do you think Jesus needed baptism ? Or could it be that He was setting a clear example for the rest of us, who do need it ?

 

[panevino]

Ed,
I have to wonder, WHAT is the basic reason for your rejection of Baptism as means for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit ? I’ve seen enough of how you try to make scripture fit this rejection—my question is, why do you find it necessary to debate it at all ?
What in the world do you think Jesus was doing when He insisted that John baptize HIM ?
Do you think Jesus needed baptism ? Or could it be that He was setting a clear example for the rest of us, who do need it ?

Ed is concerned that water baptism could be a work, and probably also concerned about the natural element involved (ie:water , apart from simple belief alone)

sorry if I have that wrong Ed.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by benedictus2
Jesus said in John 3:2 "“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”

And he further emphasizes how this is being born from above is to happen:
Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. And the born of “water” refers to man’s physical birth. Jesus in v6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh and the Spirit gives birth to the spirit. The “water” is a methaphor alluding to people Ps 144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 .When Jesus was pierced “water” and blood flowed. Flesh is the largest organ of a person’s body and contains mostly of “water” Here Jesus refers to man by calling him “water” just like in Ezk people were referred to as “bones.” It has nothing to do with “water” baptism

And you keep ignoring this: 1 Peter 3

For Christ also suffered 5 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. 19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6 20 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. 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. No amount of “water” could save anyone. What baptism does is exactly what Peter here says it does in v7 it “clears our conscience” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. meaning like Rom 6:2-4 we die to one’s self (old life) buried like Jesus, and one is then resurrected, like Jesus was to our new and holy life. “clears our conscience”, repentance, sorry for our sins and past life. Exactly like John says what “water” baptism is all about he says “repentance” and confirmed again by Paul in Acts 19:2. If you think that “water” baptism saves you now, then Jesus went to the cross in Vain. PLEASE NOTE Mat 3:16 Jesus was baptized in plain “water”. When He then came OUT OF THE WATER it was then that the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove came down onto him. WHY? John 1: 32 tells why," I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. v33 I would not have known Him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with “water” told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is He who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’" So Jesus was baptized because it’s what He says it is in Mat3:15 it’s a righteous act. A pledge of turning to God. Entrance to the church community. It has nothing to do with the atonement to forgive sins. Sins are only forgiven by the Blood of Jesus,as he states in Mat 26:28, Man’s sins are forgiven not by “water” but only by the Blood of Jesus. The ONE baptism that Eph 4:5 speaks of that unites us to the body of Christ is the baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus and that does NOT come by “water”. So when Ananias says be baptized and wash your sins away are they forgiven? NO! WHY? Sins are not forgiven until they are atoned and that is only by the Blood of Jesus. Mat 26:28. “the wash your sins away” would be better undersood “Repent” start confessing your sins away to have them forgiven by thr Blood of Jesus. So the some kind of an infusion of the Holy Spirit by “water” baptism that Nathan speaks about is a HOAX. ED O.

 

[zach_dunn]

Ed, Ed, Ed, have you forgotten about ME?

I’ll answer the rest of what you wrote when you answer what I say here. Do we have a deal? ED O.

You said this in response to only a portion of my post number 537. I said “yes” in my post number 566. Then, you replied to my post with your post number 572. This went against your very word from the quote I gave above, which I pointed out. Since then you have simply ignored my posts. You have yet to fully respond to my post number 537.

Besides skipping that post, as you specifically said you wouldn’t, you have yet to reply to my posts 566, 567, 568, 587, 588, and 590. If you could reply to these in time, I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

“And the born of “water” refers to man’s physical birth. Jesus in v6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh and the Spirit gives birth to the spirit. The “water” is a methaphor alluding to people Ps 144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 .When Jesus was pierced “water” and blood flowed. Flesh is the largest organ of a person’s body and contains mostly of “water” Here Jesus refers to man by calling him “water” just like in Ezk people were referred to as “bones.” It has nothing to do with “water” baptism” **RESPONSE: I already covered this much earlier Ed. I posted all those verses out word by word, and there is absolutely no connection between water and physical birth to be found there. You even admitted as such because you later changed your statement to mean that it meant “man.” Yet in the context, it is best understood as death, since water has served as a symbol of both death and rebirth when used in the hands of God. You are again using refuted arguments (which you never responded to, by the way) and it’s getting a bit old.

As for your second statement, I think that denying the connection between baptism and Jesus’ death is pretty retarded when you look at the fact that Paul specifically said it is what baptizes you into his death. He also explained how it was comparable to circumcision in the Old, and we all know that if you didn’t get circumcised in the Old, the promises did not apply. Your whole argument is bankrupt. I can literally copy and paste previous answers from now on. It’s not JUST water Ed, and guess what, you still haven’t shown that the Bible means “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” You have not successfully explained why Saul was not baptized by the Holy Spirit upon belief. And if he was, Ed, then his sins weren’t forgiven until the water baptism, so I guess you’re stuck in a funky spot with your theology.**

 

[benedictus2]

And the born of “water” refers to man’s physical birth. Jesus in v6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh and the Spirit gives birth to the spirit.

No the born of water does not mean physical birth. Notice that this phrase is a clarification of His first statement that one must be “born from above”. Nicodemus had already asked prior to this clarification if one must be “born again” - meaning a second physical birth.
And verse 6 does not even support your point. If flesh gives birth to flesh then to be born of from above of water and spirit does not refer to physical birth.

The “water” is a methaphor alluding to people Ps 144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 .When Jesus was pierced “water” and blood flowed. Flesh is the largest organ of a person’s body and contains mostly of “water” Here Jesus refers to man by calling him “water” just like in Ezk people were referred to as “bones.” It has nothing to do with “water” baptism
No amount of “water” could save anyone. What baptism does is exactly what Peter here says it does in v7 it “clears our conscience” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter is clear that BAPTISM SAVES. You cannot get any clearer than the way he phrased it. But what he is saying here is that it is not a cleasing of the body but a cleansing of the sou by an appeal to God to grant us a clear conscience. Only someone who has be cleansed of sin can have a clear conscience.

meaning like Rom 6:2-4 we die to one’s self (old life) buried like Jesus, and one is then resurrected, like Jesus was to our new and holy life. “clears our conscience”, repentance, sorry for our sins and past life.

That is not what it says at all although that is how you may want to read it. This is exactly what baptism by water is like. We get immersed in the water and rise with Christ.

Exactly like John says what “water” baptism is all about he says “repentance” and confirmed again by Paul in Acts 19:2. If you think that “water” baptism saves you now, then Jesus went to the cross in Vain.

Nope. Becuase it is PRECISELY JESUS’S DEATH AND RESSURECTION THAT EMPOWERS THE WATERS OF BAPTISM THE CLEANS US OF OUR SINS. By its nature water is not able to do that, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF CHRIST THAT BAPTISMAL WATER IS ABLE TO DO THAT.

PLEASE NOTE Mat 3:16 Jesus was baptized in plain “water”. When He then came OUT OF THE WATER it was then that the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove came down onto him. WHY? John 1: 32 tells why," I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. v33 I would not have known Him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with “water” told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is He who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’"

And that is true. Jesus is the one who sends the Holy Spirit. Jesus was immersed in plain water, but by virtue of His immersion in it, baptismal water ceases to be just plain water. It is not the water by itself that cleanses, it is Christ’s action through the water.

So Jesus was baptized because it’s what He says it is in Mat3:15 it’s a righteous act. A pledge of turning to God. Entrance to the church community.

And incorporation into the Community means that you must be made righteous. You cannot enter the community unless you are made righteous and that is exactly what baptism does. It is a righteous act as you said and this righteous act effects righteousness.

It has nothing to do with the atonement to forgive sins. Sins are only forgiven by the Blood of Jesus,as he states in Mat 26:28, Man’s sins are forgiven not by “water” but only by the Blood of Jesus.

Blood AND Water gushed forth from His side when He was pierced.

The ONE baptism that Eph 4:5 speaks of that unites us to the body of Christ is the baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus and that does NOT come by “water”.

Not quite. Other passages as I have outlined above does not support this. Water and Spirit is necessary for us to be born from above. Otherwise Jesus would have just said spirit.

So when Ananias says be baptized and wash your sins away are they forgiven? NO! WHY? Sins are not forgiven until they are atoned and that is only by the Blood of Jesus. Mat 26:28. “the wash your sins away” would be better undersood “Repent” start confessing your sins away to have them forgiven by thr Blood of Jesus. So the some kind of an infusion of the Holy Spirit by “water” baptism that Nathan speaks about is a HOAX. ED O.

No the water baptism that Nathan speaks of is truth. You on the other hand have a rather truncated and mutillated version of it.

 

[panevino]

… Becuase it is PRECISELY JESUS’S DEATH AND RESSURECTION THAT EMPOWERS THE WATERS OF BAPTISM THE CLEANS US OF OUR SINS. By its nature water is not able to do that, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF CHRIST THAT BAPTISMAL WATER IS ABLE TO DO THAT…

Ed,
I’d probably back up the above statement with faith (or parents faith with infants) that elevates the personal submission of being imersed/sprinkeld in water to assist in the salvific nature of baptism.
without true faith, the baptism would be invalid in eyes of god…(as is the case with any sacrament)

I have been reading your posts and looked at other protestants on the net that share your view about John 3:5-6
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

As you know I see the words ‘born of the flesh is flesh’ in 3:6 as a reference to our inadequacy before we are born of spirit. Not as a prerequisite of natural birth for salvation as you seem to read the words.
I see the references of flesh and spirit as a parallel with the following versus which back up a view of natural inadequacy.
john 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. OR
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak OR
Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. KJV

As you know I see the words ‘born of water and of the spirit’ in 3:5 as clarification to Nicodemus about the method of how we are born again. not as the two seperate events in life you read into it.

this is strengthened to me by the below versus

mark 16:15-16 NIV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

where the use of water for the baptism is further backed up by the following

acts 8:36 - KJV *And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more *

acts 8:36 clearly associates water with the baptism and mark 16:15 clearly states that we must believe and be baptised.

regardless of when holy spirit is (name removed by moderator)arted/or not imparted or whenever sins are forgiven or concious cleared etc, does not Mark 16:15 say that both belief and baptism are required, and does not acts 8:36 clearly associate physical water with baptism.

I greatly respect your concern about the whether the physical act of imersion/sprinkling or physical use of water is actually required for salvation.

I know I have said it before but the catechism of the catholic church does infact accept baptism without water in some cases.’ baptism of desire and martyrdom…however as jesus says it will ‘fullfill all righteousness’

there are a few phycical things/ elements that need to be done/are used in the bible , ie: eat bread and wine in NT
eat the sacraficed lamb in OT, sprinkle blood on door posts in OT to save the children
annointing with oil for the sick in NT(jam 5:14) etc…
From memory jesus heals someguys eyes and uses dirt and spittle to do it (when he obviously did not need to)
these things that are tangible just like the need to be submersed/sprinkled in baptism and submitting to ‘laying of hands’ thats sacramental i guess. however without true faith the above actions will achieve nothing.

I agree with your comment about the blood, wihthout belief in jesus we would not meet the requirements of Mark 16:15

the following references to water and its role are so much more relevant and clear than your interpretation of john 3:5
Ex 2:10 the woman took the child, and nursed it. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
now moses played a big part in salvific history and his name is derived from being drew from water. wow, i only found this out over the last couple weeks when I did a search on the word ‘water’ in the bible. it is quite beutifull when you consider the implications to this discussion.

Ex 17:6 water from rock for jews in desert
1 Pet 3:20 saved by water
water and blood from Jesus on cross
Jesus insists in receiving water baptism with John to “fullfill all righteousness”

would love to hear your thoughts, though understand if you dont get around to it given the ‘sea’ of response you are getting.

 

[benedictus2]

Ed,
I’d probably back up the above statement with faith (or parents faith with infants) that elevates the personal submission of being imersed/sprinkeld in water to assist in the salvific nature of baptism.
without true faith, the baptism would be invalid in eyes of god…(as is the case with any sacrament)

I have been reading your posts and looked at other protestants on the net that share your view about John 3:5-6
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

As you know I see the words ‘born of the flesh is flesh’ in 3:6 as a reference to our inadequacy before we are born of spirit. Not as a prerequisite of natural birth for salvation as you seem to read the words.
I see the references of flesh and spirit as a parallel with the following versus which back up a view of natural inadequacy.
john 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. OR
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak OR
Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. KJV

As you know I see the words ‘born of water and of the spirit’ in 3:5 as clarification to Nicodemus about the method of how we are born again. not as the two seperate events in life you read into it.

this is strengthened to me by the below versus

mark 16:15-16 NIV *Whoever believes and is baptized *will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

where the use of water for the baptism is further backed up by the following

acts 8:36 - KJV And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more

acts 8:36 clearly associates water with the baptism and mark 16:15 clearly states that we must believe and be baptised.

regardless of when holy spirit is (name removed by moderator)arted/or not imparted or whenever sins are forgiven or concious cleared etc, does not Mark 16:15 say that both belief and baptism are required, and does not acts 8:36 clearly associate physical water with baptism.

I greatly respect your concern about the whether the physical act of imersion/sprinkling or physical use of water is actually required for salvation.

I know I have said it before but the catechism of the catholic church does infact accept baptism without water in some cases.’ baptism of desire and martyrdom…however as jesus says it will ‘fullfill all righteousness’

there are a few phycical things/ elements that need to be done/are used in the bible , ie: eat bread and wine in NT
eat the sacraficed lamb in OT, sprinkle blood on door posts in OT to save the children
annointing with oil for the sick in NT(jam 5:14) etc…
From memory jesus heals someguys eyes and uses dirt and spittle to do it (when he obviously did not need to)
these things that are tangible just like the need to be submersed/sprinkled in baptism and submitting to ‘laying of hands’ thats sacramental i guess. however without true faith the above actions will achieve nothing.

I agree with your comment about the blood, wihthout belief in jesus we would not meet the requirements of Mark 16:15

the following references to water and its role are so much more relevant and clear than your interpretation of john 3:5
Ex 2:10 the woman took the child, and nursed it. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
now moses played a big part in salvific history and his name is derived from being drew from water. wow, i only found this out over the last couple weeks when I did a search on the word ‘water’ in the bible. it is quite beutifull when you consider the implications to this discussion.

Ex 17:6 water from rock for jews in desert
1 Pet 3:20 saved by water
water and blood from Jesus on cross
Jesus insists in receiving water baptism with John to “fullfill all righteousness”

would love to hear your thoughts, though understand if you dont get around to it given the ‘sea’ of response you are getting.

GREAT POST overall. I would say though that regardless of personal faith (parents / person involved) the sacraments effect what they signiy. This is why baptism remains valid so long as it tis done in the Trinitarian way even if performed by an atheist,buddhist, etc on an infant in the absence of a believing parent.

In the same manner, the bread becomes Jesus regardless of the faith of the priest (which is why we had that Miracle at Lanciano). However, I think the sacraments “work” because of the faith of the Church not so much the faith of the individual.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

GREAT POST overall. I would say though that regardless of personal faith (parents / person involved) the sacraments effect what they signiy. This is why baptism remains valid so long as it tis done in the Trinitarian way even if performed by an atheist,buddhist, etc on an infant in the absence of a believing parent.

In the same manner, the bread becomes Jesus regardless of the faith of the priest (which is why we had that Miracle at Lanciano). However, I think the sacraments “work” because of the faith of the Church not so much the faith of the individual.

All Catholic theologians teach: Sacraments are true causes (causae instrumentales) of grace.

Thomists: Causality of the Sacraments is physical (they cause the grace they signify)

Scotists and many theologians of the Society of Jesus: Moral (God gives grace immediately on account of the moral pressure exercised on Him by the Sacrament, because he has bound Himself by a treaty to do so by the institution of the Sacraments)
The Jesuit L. Billot has added the intentional mode of operation.

The Council of Trent did not decide on the nature and manner of the sacramental causality of grace.

 

[panevino]

GREAT POST overall. I would say though that regardless of personal faith (parents / person involved) the sacraments effect what they signiy. This is why baptism remains valid so long as it tis done in the Trinitarian way even if performed by an atheist,buddhist, etc on an infant in the absence of a believing parent.

In the same manner, the bread becomes Jesus regardless of the faith of the priest (which is why we had that Miracle at Lanciano). However, I think the sacraments “work” because of the faith of the Church not so much the faith of the individual.

thanks for the positive response.

CCC 1584:…the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who recieves them.

Don’t forget contrition also.

 

[ryanoneil]

And the born of “water” refers to man’s physical birth. Jesus in v6 refers back to v5 Flesh gives birth to flesh and the Spirit gives birth to the spirit. The “water” is a methaphor alluding to people Ps 144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 .When Jesus was pierced “water” and blood flowed. Flesh is the largest organ of a person’s body and contains mostly of “water” Here Jesus refers to man by calling him “water” just like in Ezk people were referred to as “bones.” It has nothing to do with “water” baptism

No amount of “water” could save anyone. What baptism does is exactly what Peter here says it does in v7 it “clears our conscience” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. meaning like Rom 6:2-4 we die to one’s self (old life) buried like Jesus, and one is then resurrected, like Jesus was to our new and holy life. “clears our conscience”, repentance, sorry for our sins and past life. Exactly like John says what “water” baptism is all about he says “repentance” and confirmed again by Paul in Acts 19:2. If you think that “water” baptism saves you now, then Jesus went to the cross in Vain. ED O.

Some day the LORD will reveal this to you Ed: There is no seperating Christ’s blood from the water of baptism!

This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.(1 John 5:6-8)

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by ryanoneil
Some day the LORD will reveal this to you Ed: There is no seperating Christ’s blood from the water of baptism!

This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.(1 John 5:6-8

Ryan, God has revealed to me exactly what you have presented here. I NEVER ONCE, ever separated the blood from water baptism BOTH are necessary, where we differ is what the “water” baptism represents.

( A ) Mat 3:11 John ought to know best as to why he was sent, he very clearly states, " I baptize you with water for repentance." In Acts 19:4, Paul very clearly states,“John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.” THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS AND THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE. -----( B ) Mat 3:11 John also says, " But after me will come one-----He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." which was also confirmed by Jesus Himself when He states in Acts 1:5,“For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”----I BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT’S BEING STATED HERE.

Here’s where the problem lies: Nathan and others here, state that the Holy Spirit is somehow infused at “water” baptism. And by being “water” baptized our sins are forgiven and we are then saved, which leaves nothing else left for Jesus to do. His going to the cross would be in vain, since at “water” baptism all is done.

That theology is false. Here’s why! The people in Acts 8:12, were “water” baptized but yet they haven’t received the Holy Spirit. V 16 says so! And the same thing takes place in Acts 19:2-4. That’s very clear isn’t it?

BAPTISM / REPENTANCE: When John says his “water” baptism is for repentance and then in Mat 3:7-8, he illustrates what he means when he refused to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees telling them to go and, “Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance” Just as what 1 Pet 3:21 states about “water” baptism, “it is not the removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,----.” Which means being sorry for sins, asking for forgiveness and turning to God. We then produce good fruits by doing good deeds and do whatever God wants us to do. As you can see! Not even the slightest hint of the Holy Spirit being infused and people are being born again by “water” baptism. That’s simply not true, according to Scripture.

BLOOD / SALVATION: Is when we believe the gospel, that is Jesus was sacrificed and died in our place, by so doing, His Blood forgives and atones for our sins, He was raised from the dead, as we will be, and now He is our High Priest in heaven and lives forever, as so will we. By this gospel we are saved. Which is confirmed by Scripture per Rom 10:9-10, 1 Cor.15:2-4 and Eph 1:13.

TO SUMMARIZE: 1 John 5: 6, 'This is He that came by “water” (baptism) and Blood (gospel) (emphasis added) So when we believe the gospel, which saves us as per 1 Cor.15:2-4 and Eph 1:13, and then get baptized to demonstrate our repentance per Mat 3:11 and 1 Pet 3:21, that completes the process as commanded by Jesus per Mat 28:19 . ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

To Nathan Wagar, benedictus2, panevino, Kevin Wilcox and ryanoneil, it doesn’t matter whether the “born of water” in John 3:5 means water baptism or as I say man’s physical birth when you consider Mat 3:16 which very clearly states that Jesus was “water” baptized. And when He CAME OUT OF THE WATER, only then, did the Holy Spirit come down in the form of a dove and remained on Jesus.

That alone should indicate that the Holy Spirit wasn’t present while Jesus was in the “water” being baptized.

By waiting until Jesus came out of the water for the Holy Spirit to then come down and remain on Him, seems to indicate that God wanted to differentiate “water” baptism from the baptism in the Holy Spirit that the Father would send unto the believers as Jesus describes in Acts 1:5, Jesus says, “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”— PLEASE NOTE, after Jesus was crucified and was about to ascend to heaven, He still calls John’s baptism “water”. By this time, wouldn’t it have been proper for Him to call it holy water?

As a result of your theology, that is, that the Holy Spirit is infused by “water” baptism, which brings up a problem that there are now TWO Holy Spirits one received at “water” baptism ( but no Scripture to support this claim) and another Holy Spirit that the Father will send, as Jesus states in Acts 1:5

In addition to the above problem, it contradicts what John states in Mat 3:11, that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And it twice contradicts Paul in Acts 13:24 and Acts 19:4, which says nothing about the Holy Spirit being infused through “water’ baptism, and it very clearly states it‘s a baptism of repentance. Even 1Peter 3:21 agrees.

Would you believe there’s still another problem. In Acts 8:12, these people were “water” baptized but for some unknown reason they didn’t receive the Holy Sprit? v16 says so!

In my opinion, wouldn’t it be simpler to just believe what the Bible teaches that “water” baptism is done to show repentance, rather than to try to squirm out of this situation with mumbo jumbo talk and no Scripture to support your claim. I realize that you must do everything you possibly can to try to convince that your form of theology right, because otherwise it’s bankrupt! As for me, I’ll base my belief in this situation on what Jesus, John, Paul and Peter very clearly say and not on what someone else tries to tell me what “water” baptism means. ED O.

 

[bluelake]

The Samaritan wasn’t Baptized… if he was, he wouldn’t have been called a Samaritan.

He is only offered as an example in the parable to demonstrate what is “a neighbor,” with the obvious answer that it is anyone in need.

Jn.3, what verse?

bluelake

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by benedictus2
Too right. Something very common with protestants. You tell them Jesus said this and they reply, but Paul said this. As if Paul would completely refute what Jesus is saying

benedictus2, You seem to be a cheerleader for Nathan, Would you please show me an example of what you mean because according to you there would have to be a conflict between Jesus and Paul. Yet, all Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is a HE the third person of the Trinity. Can the HE of the Holy Spirit fight against Himself? Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.ED O.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

No, Ed, it says the Holy Spirit had not yet come down on them. Since I have already discussed the multiple “baptisms” of the Holy Spirit, this argument doesn’t fly. The Holy Spirit was around and with the apostles prior to Pentecost, however during Pentecost it “came down” upon them. This is undeniable, because Jesus breathed onto the apostles and said to receive the Holy Spirit. After the Holy Spirit “came down” on the apostles, He was able to be given to others through the laying on of hands for the spiritual gifts necessary for evangelization. This fits in quite nicely with the idea of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and then the laying on of hands for confirmation. This is also why many Protestants recognize the difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon belief versus the laying on of hands. So you see, Ed, there is an explanation for this. What you DO NOT have an explanation for is why Saul supposedly received the Holy Spirit upon belief, but did not have his sins forgiven until he was baptized.

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that since the baptism happened on the earthly timeline before the cross, that it is nothing more than a ridiculous belief in “magic water,” and that there is no way it could be infused because Christ hadn’t died yet. This argument does not have merit, however. Jesus gave the apostles authority to cast out demons, obviously by the power of the Holy Spirit. All the OT sacrifices were looked at through grace IN ANTICIPATION of the sacrifice at cavalry. So it seems, that outside of the temporal timeline, God sees all things as they are, where the sacrifice is in some way eternally present. Whether knowingly or not, you seem to be denying the fact that the Holy Spirit was at work all throughout the Bible,since that can’t happen until Jesus dies on the earthly timeline. The problem is, there are two timelines Ed, temporal and eternal. And the sacrifice of Christ is for the past, present, and future, so your argument does not apply. Now add the fact that Paul connected baptism with Christ’s atoning death, and you literally have no solid argument for denying Paul’s clear words.

Lastly, the baptism by the apostles is not merely a baptism of repentance, it is a command to repent, then be baptized. Don’t try to confuse the Scripture here, Ed, or I’ll keep reposting it to keep you honest.

 

[zach_dunn]

Ryan, God has revealed to me exactly what you have presented here. I NEVER ONCE, ever separated the blood from water baptism BOTH are necessary, where we differ is what the “water” baptism represents.

Yes you have separated them, you separated Christ’s saving blood from the water’s of baptism, you readily admit this until you put it together in this way.

( A ) Mat 3:11 John ought to know best as to why he was sent, he very clearly states, " I baptize you with water for repentance." In Acts 19:4, Paul very clearly states,“John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.” THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS AND THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE.

We all agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, you fail to understand that Christ’s baptism is of the Holy Spirit through water. Jesus did not stop using water, that’s how people are baptized; Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize everyone, do this was not just the laying on of hands because we know they are separate [Acts 8:14-17; Heb 6:2]. You simply don’t understand that Christ used water, once you understand that you’ll understand the true meaning of baptism.

( B ) Mat 3:11 John also says, " But after me will come one-----He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." which was also confirmed by Jesus Himself when He states in Acts 1:5,“For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”----I BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT’S BEING STATED HERE.

It’s funny though, you didn’t see the Apostles simply laying their hands on people, they baptized people with water in the form Christ gave them to give new Christians the Holy Spirit [Acts 2:38]. Christ’s baptism uses water to infuse the Holy Spirit [Jn 3:5]. There are NOT two baptisms [Eph 4:5], why do you think this when it is so clearly refuted in Scripture? You never answered a question (a few, actually) I asked a while back, have you been baptized twice?

Here’s where the problem lies: Nathan and others here, state that the Holy Spirit is somehow infused at “water” baptism. And by being “water” baptized our sins are forgiven and we are then saved, which leaves nothing else left for Jesus to do. His going to the cross would be in vain, since at “water” baptism all is done.

This is one of the most false statements that I’ve ever read. Without Christ’s passion and Resurrection baptism would mean nothing! Have you read Romans 6:3-4? That’s what baptism is all about and without Christ all of this (and everything) would be meaningless and would not help in the least. You should learn some Catholic Theology before trying to trash it.

That theology is false. Here’s why! The people in Acts 8:12, were “water” baptized but yet they haven’t received the Holy Spirit. V 16 says so! And the same thing takes place in Acts 19:2-4. That’s very clear isn’t it?

You seem not to understand that Christians receive the Holy Spirit (in a special way) twice in there life, this is supported by Scripture. In the case of Acts 8 we know that baptism gives the Holy Spirit according to John 3:5 and Acts 2:38; this means that these new Christians had not yet received the graces of the Holy Spirit necessary for evangelization which we receive in confirmation.

BAPTISM / REPENTANCE: When John says his “water” baptism is for repentance and then in Mat 3:7-8, he illustrates what he means when he refused to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees telling them to go and, “Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance” Just as what 1 Pet 3:21 states about “water” baptism, “it is not the removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,----.” Which means being sorry for sins, asking for forgiveness and turning to God. We then produce good fruits by doing good deeds and do whatever God wants us to do. As you can see! Not even the slightest hint of the Holy Spirit being infused and people are being born again by “water” baptism. That’s simply not true, according to Scripture.

Don’t talk about Scripture matter of factly please, you have no idea what Scripture is saying, all you have is your own interpretation of it, which is clearly forbidden [2 Pet 1:20]. When you talk about 1 Pet 3:21, you don’t really understand what Peter is saying, here is a good commentary on this verse:

Ver. 21. Baptism, &c. That is, the ark was a figure of baptism, which saveth you from the death of the soul; and as no one was saved from the waters of the deluge but those few eight persons who were in the ark, so no one can enter into heaven if he hath not been baptized, or hath had a desire of it when come to the use of reason. And such persons as are capable of knowing what they receive, must come with the dispositions of faith and a true repentance, which is here called the examination (literally, the interrogation[3]) of a good conscience, who therefore are examined whether they believe in one God and three Persons, &c. (Witham) — Baptism is said to be the like form with the water by which Noe[Noah] was saved, because the one was a figure of the other. — Not the putting away, &c. As much as to say, that baptism has not its efficacy, in order to salvation, from its washing away any bodily filth or dirt; but from its purging the conscience from sin: when accompanied with suitable dispositions in the party, to answer the interrogations made at that time, with relation to faith, the renouncing of Satan with all his works, and the obedience to God’s commands. (Challoner)

It’s true that we no longer have to feel guilty for our sins after baptism, but that is because baptism gives us “a clear slate” as it were. All sin and guilt for sin is washed away.

← continued in next post →