I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Pax]

exrc:

Look again Phil, who is Paul addressing here you or me? Who is striving to stay justified, me or you?
…
Your friend Dan.

exrc,

Your choice of words often sparks a scriptural verse in my mind. You ask your question using the word “striving.” Now that you have done so, please explain the following in relationship to your understandings of salvation, justification, and “once saved always saved.” And please be honest in your efforts.

Hebrews 4:11
So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God;
for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.

Hebrews 12:12-16
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness** without which no one will see the Lord.** See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

You’re mistaken! That is exactly Phil’s position! He argues that Christ’s work on the cross is NOT totally efficacious UNTIL one believes, i.e., efficacy is dependent on man’s belief. Bottom line, if no one believes then His work on the cross was not efficacious. He utterly fails to comprehend, to grasp, the nature of a substitutionary sacrifice. Or better, he refuses to allow the truth of it to grasp him. And based on the overall, legalistic theology you have posted on this thread, so do you! And based on RC’ism’s sacerdotal/sacramental religious system, so does it.

You used a straw man by claiming that Phil believes that our faith “puts a stamp of approval on it or gives it it’s potency.” Your claim against him is wrong and I am not mistaken. You are putting words in someone else’s argument that distort what it is that they are driving at.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

Thanks a lot for clarifying your view of sanctification. I fully and humbly retract my concern that your position is “bizarre.” While I can concur with some of your thinking there are those obvious areas where we disagree.

The terms “positional and experiential” are not terms which are found in scripture. I do not mean to argue that the terminology must be there, but I do believe that it is rather difficult to extract these concepts and the distinctions you make from scripture without violating the holy word of God.

Paul uses sanctification and justification in different ways at different times in his teachings. Sometimes he even uses the terms as synonyms. An interesting exercise is to go through scripture and substitute justification where you read “sanctification.” Simultaneously, substitute the word sanctification whenever you read the word “justification.” Do this with the words justify and sanctify as well. The purpose is not to change scripture or its meaning. The purpose is, instead, to give insight into those instances when Paul does use the terms interchangeably.

We have quoted a great deal of scripture that makes it clear that a person can lose their justification/salvation which would mean that their sanctification is lost as well. You have not been persuaded of this, but I believe that there might be a way to prove to yourself that our position is correct. I, myself, did a similar study but in reverse so as to understand why my non-Catholic brothers and sisters believe what they do.

Here is my suggestion. Try to make an honest effort in studying scripture to prove the Catholic position on justification. In this study read only orthodox Catholic materials and arguments for explanation. Even if you remain fixed in your present belief you will at least have a greater appreciation for the Catholic position.

I can tell, Ozzie, that there have been times in the course of this thread when you have struggled mightily in your attempts to refute our scripturally supported views. I would respectfully say that in most cases you really had to stretch scripture to even attempt a successful rebuttal. There have been a few instances where you didn’t even make an attempt. A case in point were my references to the Book of Revelation, especially the posts involving the word “conquer.”

I am not saying any of this to antagonize you. I only suggest all of this as a way of helping you see past the doctrinal traditions that govern and force your exegesis. You are right when you point out that I and others toe the Catholic line. The church is our teacher and is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” We must by scripture listen to the church. The Church has provided, protected, and correctly interpreted the holy word of scripture for us. We have no other authority to even determine what is and what is not scripture. It is the Church, the body of Christ.

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

Try this one: see if you can reconcile 2027CCC with the definition of Grace being unearned, unmerited favor of God.

Dan-

This is silly. Did you even read the entire section on Grace, Justification and Merit or did you just read the “In brief” section which you quote above? 2027 Is just a summary of a more comprehensively discussed topic. Again, you seem to be of the opinion that the combined intellect and genuine reflection of the Church body for over 2000 years has no validity whatsoever compared with your own intellect. I have seen no evidence on this board to support such a supposition.

Charitably,

Phil

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Can you show me in Scripture where it says faith for salvation is a gift? Please don’t refer to 1 Cor. 12:9, it is obvious by the context that Paul is not referring to “salvation faith” there. Otherwise you would have to conclude that the other gifts of the Spirit are given to unbelievers.

Okay Ozzie,

I’ll give it a go. I would begin by saying that this is the first time you introduced the additional wrinkle of “faith for salvation is a gift.” I’m not sure exactly what you’re thinking by doing this, so perhaps clarifications will be needed on both sides as we proceed.

It’s important to remember that the words justification and salvation are virtually interchangeable terms in many areas of the NT.

Catholics and Protestants can all agree that we are saved “by grace.” What is grace…it is simply God’s favor and it comes in many forms. He grants us among other things the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity. These are forms of grace or favor that God gives us.

Now, without quibling over faith vs. faith alone it is clear that faith is a gift, and it is a necessary gift for our justification and salvation. How do we see this in scripture? Try the following:

Romans 3:23-25
…since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

Romans 4:3
For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now in verse 4 Paul says, “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.” In this context Paul is contrasting faith and works of the law and is saying that faith is a gift.

Now we know that we are justified by faith per Romans 3:28 where we read, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith…”
Just prior to this in Romans 3:24, Paul says “they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” Faith is the free gift of grace that Paul is referring to.

Notice also what Paul says in Romans 5:15-16
“But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.” We are justified by grace, we are justified by faith. We are justified by the free gift.

The apostle Peter tells us “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are guarded **through faith for a salvation ** ready to be revealed in the last time.”[See 1 Peter 1:3-5]

Peter also says in verse 9, " As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls."

There is much more, but I hope this is enough to give you what you wanted.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

To the contrary, my friend, I quote those Scriptures that explain salvation by grace through faith alone, yes, even the faith of the believer who is “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR good works” (Eph. 2:8-10). You, on the other hand, completely avoid those passages and present only those which seem TO YOU to deny the sufficiency of divine GRACE which is in Christ Jesus.

Ozzie,

Try reviewing this thread and also examine my posts on other threads and you will notice that I have quoted this very verse numerous times. This is the most ridiculous charge you’ve made against me.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

The first part of John three certainly speaks of the need for one to be born again (regenerated), but it says nothing about being baptized (Rome errors with that interpretation). Yes, being “born again” is regeneration and regeneration is being made alive in Christ Jesus, having been dead in Adam and in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:5)(QUOTE]

Ozzie,

The entire context is set in baptism and you are simply blind or in denial if you can’t admit that. If you can’t get baptism out of the discussion with Nicodemus and then see that the verses you were interested in are followed by another discussion of baptism then you are in real trouble. The verses you are interested in are bracketed by a discussion of baptism. That is the whole context. This is proved by John 3:22 where it says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.” Then there is some more narrative showing a contrast between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John.

I disagree with how you attempted to negate the issue of baptism in this chapter, and I think you’ve done so because of your doctrinal pre-dispositions. Now we can go back and forth and chirp at one another in this way, but it does no good. My suggestion to you would be to read some quality Catholic exegesis on the Lord’s discussion with Nicodemus and you will discover that the Catholic position is the correct one.

I in no way danced around the verses you wanted me to discuss. You simply don’t like the outcome of the discussion. If you read protestant commentaries you will not find any disagreement with anything that I said in my previous post concerning the verses you wanted to talk about. Now, if that’s the case, your criticisms are totally misplaced. I did point out to you that my “exposition” was not exhaustive and that much more could be said. I made no claims to have covered everything, but what I did say is beyond any reasonable criticism. The points you wish to take from the verses could be discussed at length as well. Whole books have been written on these topics. Do you really think I could address everything in a post? I made the points I did because I think that you need to understand those points. I’m sorry that you find that to be unsatisfactory.

 

[Rai]

jamaat.net/deedat.htm

 

[MariaG]

No offense Rai, but if you can’t take the time to give a small idea of what your link is, I do not choose to go and look. I prefer at least a small idea of what you want a person to look at.

God bless,
Maria

 

[WhatIf]

Coder:

Sorry, that statement is too logical.

Don’t you know this is the “no logic allowed” thread.

I’ve seen some great responses in this thread. It is nice to see Catholics explaining our faith. Is JesusFreak still responding though?

I’m trying to find posts more efficiently. I had the hardest time finding this after I posted. I need practice. Any advice on how to find a particular post? I guess this is the wrong spot for a question like this though.

 

[Rai]

MariaG:

No offense Rai, but if you can’t take the time to give a small idea of what your link is, I do not choose to go and look. I prefer at least a small idea of what you want a person to look at.

God bless,
Maria

It’s about comparative religion…Islam & Christianity

If u want the dvd version…u can check

debatelecturedvd.com/

islamicbookstore.com/video-debates—speeches-of-ahmed-deedat.html

simplyislam.com/items.asp?move=next

store.talkislam.com/deedat.html

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Simultaneously, substitute the word sanctification whenever you read the word “justification.” Do this with the words justify and sanctify as well.

WHAT!!! The two words are completely different - not just in English but especially in the original Greek!! And Paul, who thoroughly understood the Greek language of his day, never used used these words synonymously. It’s impossible to do so. I would do your little exercise only if I wanted to distort God’s written Word. Sorry, my conscience, and my love for God’s Word, won’t allow it.

The purpose is not to change scripture or its meaning. The purpose is, instead, to give insight into those instances when Paul does use the terms interchangeably.

Oh Pax, it may really not be your conscious purpose to change Scripture or its meaning, but that’s exactly what you do/did with your little “exercise.” My suggestion is that you buy some Greek word study reference books. They’re invaluable in helping the Bible student understand Greek word definitions and etymologies. If you’re interested I could suggest some.

We have quoted a great deal of scripture that makes it clear that a person can lose their justification/salvation which would mean that their sanctification is lost as well.

You have quoted nothing of the sort. I couldn’t take the time to refute contextually every one of your Scripture quotes (I can’t write a book on line), but those that I did refute (as did “exrc”), more than adequately repudiated your doctrinal stance.

Here is my suggestion. Try to make an honest effort in studying scripture to prove the Catholic position on justification. In this study read only orthodox Catholic materials and arguments for explanation.

I have read/studied the “Catholic Catechism,” listened to various tapes and constantly listen to “Catholic Answers Live” when KK and JA present their apologetics. I have yet to grow in appreciation of any aspect of RC soteriological positions. No one can, my dear fellow, when he finally understands the cross!!! Or when he understands justification just as Paul presents it in holy writ, *“being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…” *(Rom. 3:24). “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

I can tell, Ozzie, that there have been times in the course of this thread when you have struggled mightily in your attempts to refute our scripturally supported views.

WHAT??? The only thing I’ve struggled with is bewilderment and the temptation to wonder if regeneration has actually occurred in those I debate, since they cannot grasp, and even vehemently repudiate, the simplicity of the Gospel message. At times I’ve become boggled, perplexed, stunned by a particular response, and a couple times even horrified at such unbelief [immediately petitioning the Lord on their behalf), but I have never “struggled” to refute any of you Scripturally.

I am not saying any of this to antagonize you. I only suggest all of this as a way of helping you see past the doctrinal traditions that govern and force your exegesis.To the contrary, dear man, my doctrines are formed by an exegetical study of the Scriptures, not religious traditions. I teach and proclaim “eternal” salvation because that’s what God’s Word ever so clearly reveals. Doctrines and traditions are not to be tested by their longevity, but God’s immutable, inerrant Word. Written long before Rome canonized their “traditions.”

The Church has provided, protected, and correctly interpreted the holy word of scripture for us.

Ah-huh, that’s certainly what they tell you, isn’t it? And they don’t even have to prove it. It’s just all so “beautiful,” right?

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

I’ll give it a go. I would begin by saying that this is the first time you introduced the additional wrinkle of “faith for salvation is a gift.”

Wrinkle??? Pax, I think everyone that’s participated on this thread KNOWS we’ve been discussing in the context of salvation. It was even reflected way back there in the original question.Catholics and Protestants can all agree that we are saved “by grace.” What is grace…it is simply God’s favor and it comes in many forms. He grants us among other things the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity. These are forms of grace or favor that God gives us.Yes, “grace” is divine favor. “Favor” by definition means unmerited, unrecompensed and undeserved, otherwise it is no longer a “favor.” “For BY GRACE (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor) you have been saved…it is a GIFT of God.” In respect to one getting saved it (grace) does not come in many forms. It (salvation) is bestowed simply by divine “favor.” The “gift of faith” cannot save you, “hope” cannot save you, nor can “charity.” These are/should be attributes of those already saved BY GRACE. You are not saved by faith, you are saved BY GRACE through faith [Eph. 2:8).

Now, without quibling over faith vs. faith alone it is clear that faith is a gift,Hey, hey, hey… back up Pilgrim!!! You’ve said nothing yet to prove that faith is a gift. I asked you to show me in Scriptures where it states that salvation faith is a gift of God. Now please take me to the text.

Romans 3:23-25

Sorry Pax, these passages state that justification is the gift, not faith. Nevertheless, I suggest you meditate on these verses for your own edification and education.

Romans 4:3

Sorry again. This too is speaking of justification

, not faith. Please don’t do your little “exercise” of switching words.

Now we know that we are justified by faith per Romans 3:28 where we read, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith…” Just prior to this in Romans 3:24, Paul says “they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” Faith is the free gift of grace that Paul is referring to.

WHAT??? Throughout Romans three and four it is justification that is the free gift. NOWHERE it is stated that faith is the gift. Nor do you find it stated in the Peter passages you quoted.

There is much more, but I hope this is enough to give you what you wanted.

Whew!!! I’m sure glad you’re not Santa Claus!! (wink)

 

[Pax]

WHAT!!! The two words are completely different - not just in English but especially in the original Greek!! And Paul, who thoroughly understood the Greek language of his day, never used used these words synonymously. It’s impossible to do so. I would do your little exercise only if I wanted to distort God’s written Word. Sorry, my conscience, and my love for God’s Word, won’t allow it.Oh Pax, it may really not be your conscious purpose to change Scripture or its meaning, but that’s exactly what you do/did with your little “exercise.” My suggestion is that you buy some Greek word study reference books. They’re invaluable in helping the Bible student understand Greek word definitions and etymologies. If you’re interested I could suggest some.You have quoted nothing of the sort. I couldn’t take the time to refute contextually every one of your Scripture quotes (I can’t write a book on line), but those that I did refute (as did “exrc”), more than adequately repudiated your doctrinal stance.I have read/studied the “Catholic Catechism,” listened to various tapes and constantly listen to “Catholic Answers Live” when KK and JA present their apologetics. I have yet to grow in appreciation of any aspect of RC soteriological positions. No one can, my dear fellow, when he finally understands the cross!!! Or when he understands justification just as Paul presents it in holy writ, *“being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…” *(Rom. 3:24). “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).WHAT??? The only thing I’ve struggled with is bewilderment and the temptation to wonder if regeneration has actually occurred in those I debate, since they cannot grasp, and even vehemently repudiate, the simplicity of the Gospel message. At times I’ve become boggled, perplexed, stunned by a particular response, and a couple times even horrified at such unbelief [immediately petitioning the Lord on their behalf), but I have never “struggled” to refute any of you Scripturally.To the contrary, dear man, my doctrines are formed by an exegetical study of the Scriptures, not religious traditions. I teach and proclaim “eternal” salvation because that’s what God’s Word ever so clearly reveals. Doctrines and traditions are not to be tested by their longevity, but God’s immutable, inerrant Word. Written long before Rome canonized their "traditions."Ah-huh, that’s certainly what they tell you, isn’t it? And they don’t even have to prove it. It’s just all so *“beautiful,”

right?

Nice try but this is nothing more than baloney. You have never refuted the scriptures we have presented on salvation or our refutations of eternal security. Your claims don’t make it so.

 

[Ozzie]

Rai:

It’s about comparative religion…Islam & Christianity

This thread is not about comparing Islam and Christianity.

 

[Pax]

Wrinkle??? Pax, I think everyone that’s participated on this thread KNOWS we’ve been discussing in the context of salvation. It was even reflected way back there in the original question.

Catholics and Protestants can all agree that we are saved “by grace.” What is grace…it is simply God’s favor and it comes in many forms. He grants us among other things the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity. These are forms of grace or favor that God gives us.Yes, “grace” is divine favor. “Favor” by definition means unmerited, unrecompensed and undeserved, otherwise it is no longer a “favor.” “For BY GRACE (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor) you have been saved…it is a GIFT of God.” In respect to one getting saved it (grace) does not come in many forms. It (salvation) is bestowed simply by divine “favor.” The “gift of faith” cannot save you, “hope” cannot save you, nor can “charity.” These are/should be attributes of those already saved BY GRACE. You are not saved by faith, you are saved BY GRACE through faith [Eph. 2:8). Hey, hey, hey… back up Pilgrim!!! You’ve said nothing yet to prove that faith is a gift. I asked you to show me in Scriptures where it states that *salvation faith is a gift of God. Now please take me to the text.Sorry Pax, these passages state that justification is the gift, not faith. Nevertheless, I suggest you meditate on these verses for your own edification and education.

Romans 4:3

Sorry again. This too is speaking of justification

, not faith. Please don’t do your little “exercise” of switching words.WHAT??? Throughout Romans three and four it is justification that is the free gift. NOWHERE it is stated that faith is the gift. Nor do you find it stated in the Peter passages you quoted.Whew!!! I’m sure glad you’re not Santa Claus!! (wink)

Ozzie,

You disagree but you are wrong and virtually every Protestant scholar I have ever read, along with preachers that I have heard, as well as all of my personal experiences with non-Catholic Christians, tell me that Protestants believe that faith is a gift. You’re the only person that claims otherwise. You are on another planet on this one. The scriptures I presented and there are more substantiate every claim I made in this regard. You might try going over to some Protestant chat rooms and have them tell you the same thing. You are further from the truth than you know.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Ozzie,

The entire context is set in baptism and you are simply blind or in denial if you can’t admit that. If you can’t get baptism out of the discussion with Nicodemus and then see that the verses you were interested in are followed by another discussion of baptism then you are in real trouble. The verses you are interested in are bracketed by a discussion of baptism. That is the whole context. This is proved by John 3:22 where it says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.” Then there is some more narrative showing a contrast between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John.

Sorry Pax, but verse 22 has nothing to do with Jesus’ previous discussion with Nicodemus. It’s a totally different subject, a totally different place and a totally different time. Nothing in the text itself even ties the two together doctrinally. It doesn’t say they were baptizing and the people were being “born again.” It is mentioned that Jesus and His disciples were baptizing because the purpose of the narrative is to bring out the superiority of Jesus to John the Baptist (Jn. 3:30-36), a man of great popularity in those days. Again, you’re reading your pre-formed doctrine into the text.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

You disagree but you are wrong and virtually every Protestant scholar I have ever read, along with preachers that I have heard, as well as all of my personal experiences with non-Catholic Christians, tell me that Protestants believe that faith is a gift. You’re the only person that claims otherwise. You are on another planet on this one. The scriptures I presented and there are more substantiate every claim I made in this regard. You might try going over to some Protestant chat rooms and have them tell you the same thing. You are further from the truth than you know.

The issue of faith being a gift amongst Prostestants is within the context of the Calvinism controversy. The issue of divine election vs. free will. But this is not a can of worms we should open on this thread, agree? We’ve already got someone trying to get Islam into the picture.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

The issue of faith being as a gift amongst Prostestants is within the context of the Calvinism controversy. The issue of divine election vs. free will. But this is not a can of worms we should open on this thread, agree? We’ve already got someone trying to get Islam into the picture.

Ozzie,

I refuse to let this go because you brought it up originally and because it is an eggregious error. This is not simply set in the Calvinism controversy and does “not have to be” an issue of divine election vs. free will. Your thinking on many of these matters is one dimensional and you seem unable to link truths together as they should be.

Lets see what some protestant sources say about Faith as gift.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary(a protestant source) says:
Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel."

Strong’s Concordance #4102 Faith (pistis) - Conviction, confidence, trust, belief, reliance, trustworthiness, and persuasion. In the NT setting, **pistis is the divinely implanted principle ** of inward confidence, assurance, trust, and reliance in God, and all that He says. The word sometimes denotes the object or content of belief.

John Calvin had this to say, “For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary to be known for salvation; as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith.” Likewise Calvin says, “In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end.” Calvin goes on to say, “The divine favor to which faith is said to have respect, we understand to include in it the possession of salvation and eternal life.” Perhaps Calvin’s clearest words against you are these “Faith is the special gift of God in both ways, - in purifying the mind so as to give it a relish for divine truth, and afterwards in establishing it therein. For the Spirit does not merely originate faith, but gradually increases it, until by its means he conducts us into the heavenly kingdom." (Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Chapter 2.)

In Catholic terminology “faith is an act of the intellect moved by the will, which in turn** is moved by the grace of God.”** We cannot believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior exept by grace and that is why faith is a gift. That is why Jesus says in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Sorry Pax, but verse 22 has nothing to do with Jesus’ previous discussion with Nicodemus. It’s a totally different subject, a totally different place and a totally different time. Nothing in the text itself even ties the two together doctrinally. It doesn’t say they were baptizing and the people were being “born again.” It is mentioned that Jesus and His disciples were baptizing because the purpose of the narrative is to bring out the superiority of Jesus to John the Baptist (Jn. 3:30-36), a man of great popularity in those days. Again, you’re reading your pre-formed doctrine into the text.

Ozzie,

Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus is about being born again through water and spirit, i.e. being born anew, being born from above. This is baptism. The baptism of Jesus by John is an illustration for us about baptism. While Jesus in His divine nature was in no need of baptism or the Holy Spirit as we do (because He and the Spirit are one with the Father), He still had John baptize Him.

Notice what scripture says in Matthew 3:14-17, "John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

First of all John recognizes that he “needs” to be baptized by Jesus. Then Jesus says that John should baptize him so that they would fulfil “all” righteousness. Finally, when Jesus is baptized the Spirit descended upon Jesus and God the Father says, “This is my beloved son, whom I am well pleased.” This is the illustration and definition of Christian baptism instituted and made holy by Jesus, himself. Just as the Father’s divine son was baptized and recieved the Holy Spirit, so also do we as adopted sons and daughters recieve the Holy Spirit and are reconciled to the Father.

In being baptized Jesus makes holy and powerful the Trinitarian baptism spoken of in Matthew 28:19. We are reborn from above through water and Spirit just as seen in the above verses and this is exactly what Jesus is speaking of when he talks to Nicodemus in John Chapter 3. Baptism is the sacrament of faith and it is faith that John speaks of in verses 14-21. It is not insignificant that in verse 22 the gospel immediately returns to baptism. For you to read it otherwise is a refusal to appreciate the context and obvious connections expressed by the apostle.

There is incredible power and beauty in all of this that I find awe inspiring. God lavishly pours out His power and grace upon us.