I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Pax]

Ozzie,

When I said the following:

“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.”

…you then responded with:

“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.”

Please look again at the verses. In verse 24 it says “…they are justified by grace as a gift.”

In verse 28 it says “….we are justified by faith.”

Now, Ozzie please think about it. We are either justified by grace as a gift or we are justified by faith. Which is it? Obviously, Paul is talking about faith as the free gift of grace or he is completely confused about how we are saved. Connect the dots already!!!

 

[Catherine_S]

Philthy:

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

Who is more likely to have understood** the teaching of the apostles correctly,** those early writers we call the Fathers of the Church or the Protestant Reformers who came on the scene about thirteen centuries after the Fathers.

Pride coupled with love of controversy is a deadly combination. Paul offers a chilling description of a certain kind of contentious individual, saying “he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men” (1 Tim. 6:4–5).****

Who among us is not well advised, therefore, always to be mindful lest our poor show of love fall dangerously short of even the most minimal expectation Christ sets for those who claim to love God?

Shalom

 

[CJE]

The biggest problem that I see with the Protestant view of OSAS, is that it removes any personal responsibility for sin.

If Christ forgave all of our sins in advance, why is there any need for a judgement at the end of time. All God would need to do it say “You believe, you are saved. You did not know believe, you are not saved.”

Somehow, I know, it is not going to be that simple. There will be a judgement where all of us will be judged based on our entire life, not just the instance that we believed in Christ.

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie-

You have ignored my post # 1177. Was it too much for you to handle or what? Be sure to give your answers to the SIMPLE multiple choices that I presented. And don’t worry about the crucifixion comments - I understand perfectly if you remain silent on that…

Phil

 

[Catherine_S]

CJE:

The biggest problem that I see with the Protestant view of OSAS, is that it removes any personal responsibility for sin.

If Christ forgave all of our sins in advance, why is there any need for a judgement at the end of time. All God would need to do it say “You believe, you are saved. You did not know believe, you are not saved.”

Somehow, I know, it is not going to be that simple. There will be a judgement where all of us will be judged based on our entire life, not just the instance that we believed in Christ.

CJE

Picture a Cross with Christ on it…under the Cross is a sign that reads " this is how much I love you".

Now…

Picture a Cross with Christ on it…under the Cross is a sign that reads " this is how much I love you. love other as I have loved you".

None of us have arrived and most of us have hardly begun! Love is never about words it is always about actions too. The Cross is about dieing and dieing to self is a life long process.…this will not be completed here on earth… we are still on the way. Our response to the greatest of all loves…the love of Jesus for His Father and for us…opened the way to the Father but we must walk the walk. Jesus lived His life in obedience to His Father seeking to please His Father in all things …we too are called to live our lives in response to His love and in the same obedience..This transformation of us into loving sons and daughters of God…comes through grace… the Love of Father for Son and Son for Father in the working of the Holy Spirit…we respond or we refuse and go our own way. There are built in consequences to sin and we can not change them.They **begin **right here on earth.The Catholic Church teaches the truth of Salvation and has always done so… no matter how many of us go our own way.This is Christ’s Church and it will remain until the end of days.

Shalom

 

[exrc]

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, stop with the distraction tactics. Let’s stop talking about milk and start eating meat. You skimmed right over the meat in that post and went for the fluff. Once you understand the depth of sin, the cross, and God’s forensic justice, you will start to mature spiritually.

Let’s start here: Define the terms I posted. Do you remember what the name of this thread is?

It’s time to grow up Pax!

Your very frustrated friend Dan.

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

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

If I called a certain animal a cow, 20 times, then the 21st time I called it a pig, would you think I was confused? Insane? or deceitful?

There aren’t any other choices Phil. You are defending the indefendable.

exrc

 

[Pax]

exrc:

Pax, stop with the distraction tactics. Let’s stop talking about milk and start eating meat. You skimmed right over the meat in that post and went for the fluff. Once you understand the depth of sin, the cross, and God’s forensic justice, you will start to mature spiritually.

Let’s start here: Define the terms I posted. Do you remember what the name of this thread is?

It’s time to grow up Pax!

Your very frustrated friend Dan.

Dan,

You should be frustrated. You have no answer for our refutations of “once saved always saved” and you have refused to address the verses I posted from Hebrews. I am not putting out annoying distractions. You cannot answer these verses without denying the errant doctrine of “once saved always saved” which is an integral part of our discussion. Instead of answering you made an ad hominem attack which has no substance.

If you can answer them then please do so. If you decide to try answering them, then please use an exegesis of the verses presented.

Thanking you in advance.

Pax

 

[exrc]

Pax:

Dan,

You should be frustrated. You have no answer for our refutations of “once saved always saved” and you have refused to address the verses I posted from Hebrews. I am not putting out annoying distractions. You cannot answer these verses without denying the errant doctrine of “once saved always saved” which is an integral part of our discussion. Instead of answering you made an ad hominem attack which has no substance.

If you can answer them then please do so. If you decide to try answering them, then please use an exegesis of the verses presented.

Thanking you in advance.

Pax

If you define those terms, then I will gladly answer your verses. deal?

exrc

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

If I called a certain animal a cow, 20 times, then the 21st time I called it a pig, would you think I was confused? Insane? or deceitful?

There aren’t any other choices Phil. You are defending the indefendable.

exrc

Hi Dan -

You have unsuccessfully avoided my question: “Did you even read the entire section or not?” I didn’t ask you if you thought you had a valid reason for your assessment. Do you see the difference? I’m not interested in your opinion if you haven’t read the whole section. I guess this means that you didn’t actually read the entire section on Grace, Justification and Merit but that you feel confident stepping in with the “in summary” section and then proceeding to slander. And why wouldn’t you feel comfortable - it supports your agenda. I understand completely - we all have an agenda. The problem is, you need to read the entire section to understand, at the very least, all the vocabulary. Otherwise, you may believe things are being said when they aren’t and vice versa.

With respect to your example, which further illuminates your intellectual capacity (mine is no better) and satisfaction with the most superficial and limited understanding of things, there are other choices but you ae blind to them. Both of the words you chose function as a noun with different meanings that are not mutually exclusive . For example, pig can be used to characterize something that exhibits greed or selfishness (10 different definitions in my dictionary). Therefore there is nothing wrong with saying “That cow is a pig” if you mean to say, for example,that the cow exhibits greedy feeding behavior - only confusion if you don’t know how the words are being used.

The point is not that your example was a poor one. The point is that when explicit clarity is required language must be precise and it requires quite a bit of effort to ensure that everyone is using words in exactly the same manner. You can’t just gloss over the “summary” and say you’ve given it an honest effort.

I answered your question. Now I have a question for you:

Lets assume there was a point in time when man could do nothing to merit grace. Then, at a later point in time (and for reasons we don’t need to go into now) God declares that if we behave in certain ways that are pleasing to Him by allowing the holy Spirit to live in our lives that he will bestow grace upon us.
Now a certain man chooses to follow Gods directives and God is pleased and bestowes grace upon that man.

Was the grace that God bestowed upon him merited, unmerited or both?

A) Merited only
B) Unmerited only
C) Both depending on the use of “merited”

Forgive me if my words are harsher than they should be…

Phil

 

[Pax]

exrc:

Pax, …

Once you understand the depth of sin, the cross, and God’s forensic justice, you will start to mature spiritually.

…

It’s time to grow up Pax!

Your very frustrated friend Dan.

Dan,

In the above statement you mentioned God’s forensic justice. While Catholics and Protestants generally agree on the forensic aspect of God’s justice it is only a part of justification.

The Protestant position you hold can best be summarized by the following:

“James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.”

The Westminster statement on justification says:
“Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

The Catholic position rightly holds that there is this forensic element but that there is also a regenerative element. We know this from scripture. The NT talks about being born again and about the regenerated vs. the natural man. The OT gives a picture of the nature of grace as well. Remember the quotation I have given a couple of times previously from Isaiah 55:11 where it says, “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but **it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” **

We become adopted sons and daughters in the New Covenant and receive an inheritance (something that is not earned). But as sons and daughters (see the prodigal son) we can squander and lose our inheritance, or we can even return in repentance to be reconciled with the Father once more. The main thing to remember is that justification is much more than merely a “forensic” declaration because God’s word goes out in power and it prospers in the thing for which it is sent.

The regenerated man has the power of God’s grace working within him to avoid sin. If the regenerated man does sin he has, as the apostle John says, an “advocate” in Jesus Christ and the man can repent and be forgiven. All of this is by the “power” of God’s grace. To believe that Christ’s work on the cross merely carries a “forensic” element denies the nature and power of God’s grace. When God said “Let there be Light” there was light. When God says “we are justified and regenerated” then that is exactly what happens. We are given power to avoid sin, to trust God, to love God and neighbor as God meant us to. When we deny this aspect of justification we deny the power of God’s grace.

God in His generous love, however, never forces us and we are free to accept Him or reject Him. Once we accept Him we can betray/reject Him. Adam and Eve were in an initial state of justification and then turned away from God. There turning away had enormous consequences that could only be remedied by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When we turn away from God, He waits for us to return to the household. Because of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus we can repent and be restored once again inspite of our sins. Repentence is still necessary even though the redemptive work of Jesus is once and for all.

 

[Philthy]

Pax:

Dan,

In the above statement you mentioned God’s forensic justice. While Catholics and Protestants generally agree on the forensic aspect of God’s justice it is only a part of justification.

The Protestant position you hold can best be summarized by the following:

“James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.”

The Westminster statement on justification says:
“Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

The Catholic position rightly holds that there is this forensic element but that there is also a regenerative element. We know this from scripture. The NT talks about being born again and about the regenerated vs. the natural man. The OT gives a picture of the nature of grace as well. Remember the quotation I have given a couple of times previously from Isaiah 55:11 where it says, “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but **it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” **

We become adopted sons and daughters in the New Covenant and receive an inheritance (something that is not earned). But as sons and daughters (see the prodigal son) we can squander and lose our inheritance, or we can even return in repentance to be reconciled with the Father once more. The main thing to remember is that justification is much more than merely a “forensic” declaration because God’s word goes out in power and it prospers in the thing for which it is sent.

The regenerated man has the power of God’s grace working within him to avoid sin. If the regenerated man does sin he has, as the apostle John says, an “advocate” in Jesus Christ and the man can repent and be forgiven. All of this is by the “power” of God’s grace. To believe that Christ’s work on the cross merely carries a “forensic” element denies the nature and power of God’s grace. When God said “Let there be Light” there was light. When God says “we are justified and regenerated” then that is exactly what happens. We are given power to avoid sin, to trust God, to love God and neighbor as God meant us to. When we deny this aspect of justification we deny the power of God’s grace.

God in His generous love, however, never forces us and we are free to accept Him or reject Him. Once we accept Him we can betray/reject Him. Adam and Eve were in an initial state of justification and then turned away from God. There turning away had enormous consequences that could only be remedied by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When we turn away from God, He waits for us to return to the household. Because of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus we can repent and be restored once again inspite of our sins. Repentence is still necessary even though the redemptive work of Jesus is once and for all.

Beautiful Pax - thank you!

Phil

 

[Cubby]

Philthy:

Beautiful Pax - thank you!

Phil

Amen!

Over the weekend I was reading the NT and came across some scripure that seems to refute popular protestant claims made on this thread. 1Cor. 10:1-13. St. Paul warns the Corinthians about being overconfident in their faith but then ends up telling them that God won’t test them beyond what they can handle. Now tell me, does this mean that it’s up to us to stand firm and hold fast to our faith? God gives us a way out of every temptation, but like the Israelites we can be lost in the desert although we have participated in God’s saving graces?

How else can this be interpeted?

In the verses immediately following these, St. Paul seems to give another reference to the real presence of Christ in Communion.

…A little help please…

Thanks,

Cubby
<><

 

[Pax]

exrc,

You have made an unreasonable demand in asking that all of the terms you listed be defined. First of all the list itself is far too long and we would be heading down a long list of tangential issues if we tried to have an exchange on this thread.

Secondly, and most important is that all of these terms have been defined by the Catholic Church and the definitions are readily available in the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia online. I have in a recent post given some exploration into the definition of justification from both a Protestant view and a Catholic view. As Catholics we cannot give any better definition to the terms on your list than those promulgated by the Church.

Your choice not to address the verses in Hebrews and other verses quoted over the course of this thread is certainly well within your perogative. My only retort is that the verses go directly to the heart of refuting “salvation by faith alone” and “once saved always saved.” In my opinion these verses and the many others that you could not refute are particularly salient to the point of this thread.

I do not, however, think it reasonable or profitable for us to go through a definition of a long list of terms at this late stage. In fact, many of the terms on your list have been given enough play on this thread to give each side a good sense of what the other believes they mean. I think the timing and setting, considering how far we have come in our discussions, will do little good.

I hope you understand my point in this regard. I truly mean no disrespect and I’m not trying to dodge your post. If you have a specific item of interest in how you understand the Catholic position in one of these areas, bring it up and we will discuss it.

 

[Pax]

exrc,

You have made an unreasonable demand in asking that all of the terms you listed be defined. First of all the list itself is far too long and we would be heading down a long list of tangential issues if we tried to have an exchange on this thread.

Secondly, and most important is that all of these terms have been defined by the Catholic Church and the definitions are readily available in the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia online. I have in a recent post given some exploration into the definition of justification from both a Protestant view and a Catholic view. As Catholics we cannot give any better definition to the terms on your list than those promulgated by the Church.

Your choice not to address the verses in Hebrews and other verses quoted over the course of this thread is certainly well within your perogative. My only retort is that the verses go directly to the heart of refuting “salvation by faith alone” and “once saved always saved.” In my opinion these verses and the many others that you could not refute are particularly salient to the point of this thread.

I do not, however, think it reasonable or profitable for us to go through a definition of a long list of terms at this late stage. In fact, many of the terms on your list have been given enough play on this thread to give each side a good sense of what the other believes they mean. I think the timing and setting, considering how far we have come in our discussions, will do little good.

I hope you understand my point in this regard. I truly mean no disrespect and I’m not trying to dodge your post. If you have a specific item of interest in how you understand the Catholic position in one of these areas, bring it up and we will discuss it.

 

[RBushlow]

Pax:

all of these terms have been defined by the Catholic Church and the definitions are readily available in the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia online. I have in a recent post given some exploration into the definition of justification from both a Protestant view and a Catholic view. As Catholics we cannot give any better definition to the terms on your list than those promulgated by the Church.

You are wasting your time in exrc and Ozzie. They have chosen to reject the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so to remain outside of the Truth. Let us pray that they will cease to harden their hearts and the Holy Spirit will give them eyes to see and ears to hear.

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Cubby]

exrc:

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

You may want to find out the meaning of the word church ( ekklesia) from its Greek origin. Also remember you are Roman not catholic.

I’m afraid I won’t see you there cubby, because the RCC has condemned me with over 100 anathemas. Here is just one which should be enough to do it. Canon 3 of the council of Trent.

Your friend Dan!

I’m very surprised at your most uncharitable post…
Let’s see if I understand you…

You’re asumming that I don’t know the meaning of the word church? And you are telling me that I am Roman, but not catholic? And, then you’re saying that you won’t see me in heaven, because the Roman Catholic Church has the power to keep you out of heaven, and has already done so?

(Sorry, but I’m having a hard time making sense out of your post - do you mind explaining your views instead of just stating them?)

In the meantime, consider the meaning of this warning;

Romans 16:17-20.

I urge you brothers watch out for those who create dissensions…for such people do not serve the Lord Jesus Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they decieve the hearts of the innocent…the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

I got bad news for you and Ozzie, the Good News of Jesus Christ is alive and well in the Catholic Church, but somewhere along the way those who create dissensions created dissension and now you have chosen to follow the dissenters.

 

[Catherine_S]

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith?

Not according to the Bible

While we must guard against merely human tradition, **the **Bible makes clear the necessity of clinging to apostolic Tradition.

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

**The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the Traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, **

Pope Clement I
“Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and** the Tradition **of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults” (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120] affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John [the apostle]. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name and in his writings** gives their Traditions [concerning Jesus].** . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from Tradition” (Fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. [/color]312])

Eusebius of Caerarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and finally Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing,** the sound and orthodox faith** received from Tradition” (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus
**Clement of Alexandria **
Cyprian
Athanasius
Basil
Augustine
John Chrysostom
Can all be read !

Shalom**

**

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Now, Ozzie please think about it. We are either justified by grace as a gift or we are justified by faith. Which is it? Obviously, Paul is talking about faith as the free gift of grace or he is completely confused about how we are saved. Connect the dots already!!!

You’re connecting dots, Pax, but they don’t form the picture revealed in the actual text:

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-24).

It’s justification that’s the GIFT by His grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor). Grace is the means by which God justifies the believing sinner, the cross always being the content of the justified one’s faith, which is expressed in verses 24 & 25. Verse 28 says “by faith” because the gift of justification is bestowed on the one who “rests” in the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone. The believer is “justified as a gift BY HIS GRACE” because of the cross.

Paul further developes this truth in Chapter four where he explains:

ROM 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,”

ROM 4:6 “just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:”

“Grace” is a divine means, not a gift. Faith being the agent, justification the gift.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

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.”

Yes, that the Father draws is a gracious act of God, but that doesn’t make faith itself a GIFT. *“Drawing” *is one thing, “gifting” is completely another. You’ll notice that of the Protestant theologians you quoted only Calvin actually states that faith is a “gift.” “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.)" Like I said, in the Protestant realms of soteriology the controversy of faith being a complete “gift” is most often linked with Calvinism and the doctrine of “predestination.” To the Calvinist faith is gifted only to those predestined in eternity past for salvation; and they use Jn. 6:44 as a pet-text. Don’t just quote Protestant theologians if you don’t know their theological roots. Pax, are you an Augustinian-Catholic? Are you an advocate of divine predestination as taught by Augustine?

Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus is about being born again through water and spirit, i.e. being born anew, being born from above.

No it isn’t! Jesus specifically states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water AND the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (vs. 6). He differentiates between the two. And right there in the text He explains what being 'born of water" means: “That which is born of flesh is flesh.” One physically born MUST also be SPIRITUALLY born from above by the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God. He says NOTHING about baptism within the whole context.

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 3

Your whole doctrine of baptismal regeneration is poured INTO the text of John 3:1-9, but it’s impossible to get your doctrine OUT OF that text. Baptism is not even mentioned in His conversation with Nicodemus, and Jesus Himself explains what He means by being “born of water;” and He does not define it as baptism.

So rather than just taking this as an opportunity to post the fully developed RC doctrine of baptismal regeneration, let’s get back to you just providing me with a contextual exposition of Jn. 3:14-18, as I originally asked. My hope is that you would learn from Scripture itself. Notice, Jesus does not say the word baptism at all, but explicitly uses the word “believes.” He doesn’t say whoever is “baptized,” but whoever *“believes” *in Him should not perish but have ETERNAL life. Why would you want to manipulate His words just to support Rome? When you examine Jn. 3:1-21 and just accept it for what it says, it becomes notably obvious to the reader that one is born again by faith in Christ alone, and because of that faith he is given ETERNAL life. How simple can it get? You must be careful not to add to the gospel message, Pax.