John 3:5 simple meaning

[fbl9]

Nsper7: Yes our bible only has 66 books, and you make the point that the Jewish nation created their own cannon of 39 books, however just because the pharacies rejected Christ doesn’t mean that their cannon was incomplete. God established their cannon as the Law, Psalms and the Prophets combined, and the last Prophet died in the 4th century BC. Also no book of the Apocrypha claims it is inspired, but the cannon of 39 books does. And Jesus himself concluded what was the cannon, The Law, Psalms and the Prophets. Another point is If the early church felt that these 7 or 9 books should have been included in the Jewish cannon, by the writers, then why does the Catholic church call these books the 2nd cannon. ( Deuterocanonical ). Also St. Jerome who translated your Vulgate agreed with the Jewish cannon of 39 books and said the apocrypha should only be considered as historical writings. However the Church went against his beliefs and added these books into the Vulgate only because they were included in the Septuagint as an amendment. Also none of the apocryphal writings were written in Hebrew, and could never have been included in the Hebrew cannon. Also why didn’t the Catholic church officially canonize these books until the council of Trent in 1547 AD?

Anyway these are a few reasons why Martin Luther and all Protestants reject them as inspired.

Just when was the Hebrew canon established? Was it not until after Christ’s acension?
So then it has no authority for the convenat has been moved onto the church and not the Jews.And how is it possible to know the full word of God yet reject the Word made flesh?

I going to let you in on something when you attack the church you are not attacking a object but each and every single member, yes even on an individual basis.You see as you have described “the church is a body of believers” we do (catholics) make up that body of believers…

 

[jlhargus]

Erikd: When the bible speaks about tradition, yes I agree it is the teachings of the apostles. And yes the early christians did not have a complete written new testament to read from. However they did have an apostles doctrine that we now have as the bible, and the early christians had the complete old testament written bible to read in church’s. The point that I am trying to show it that the Catholic church has laid claim to sacred tradition as the apostles doctrine,

JL: Sacret Tradition is the apostles doctrine WHETHER BY WORD OR EPISTLE, as Paul tell us in [2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, whether BY WORD OR OUR EPISTLE.] Show me in scripture, you claim as your sole authority, where it says all traditions are now written. Your own authority tells you the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. The Church on whom Chrsit promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide into ALL TRUTH, not hit and miss truth.

and also claims to be able to add to this apostles doctrine through infallible speakings of the Popes. This is the error I am trying to get to the bottom of that cannot be supported by scripture.

JL: The pope nor anyone can add to the deposit of faith or Word of God whether by word or epistle received from the apostles. The Church is the custodian of the Word of God whether by word or epistle and must pass on faithfully only WHAT SHE HAS RECEIVED. The error is your not understanding infalliblity.

The faith that Jesus handed down to the 12 apostles was that body of doctrines and teachings that they directly received from the holy spirit and they taught to the new testament writers.

JL: Yes the faith Jesus handed down to the apostles was the body of doctrines and teachings they received. Yes those new testament writers knew the gospel and wrote some of that Tradition down. They wrote in scripture to keep TRADITIONS TAUGHT whether by word OR epistle=scripture. Why are you not doing what your authority tells you? Scripture tells us to keep and commit to faithful men Oral Tradition and how it is kept, by the Holy Ghost.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also. [Timothy is to commit by Oral Tradition to faithful men able to teach others.]

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee **KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US. Paul instructs Timothy to hold those Oral Traditions COMMITED to him and to KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST in him.

That is the foundation of Christianity, and that is the foundation of the church. We all build off of that foundation and must be careful not to build off of another.

JL: The scripture tells us to build on the foundaton of the apostles and that is what we do whether by word OR epistle. Do you do that?

I ask you as well, is it possible that the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings are a result of historical events and circumstances developed to try and survive and grow and thrive in this world, and not based off of or deviated from the apostles doctrine?

JL: No it is not possible, Christ pormised the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into ALL TRUTH. Christ promised Peter’s faith would not fail, Christ promised the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church and Paul tells us the Chruch is the pillar and ground of truth.

Remember Christ came not to unify but to divide men between those who believe the gospel and those who do not. We may have to hate our mothers and brothers for the sake of the gospel. I believe this current driving force for unity in religion and in government is the work of Satan, and I want to try and show this through the word of God.

JL: Oh so Christ didn’t mean it when he prayed in the garden that HIS PEOPLE be ONE so the WORLD WOULD BELIEVE the Father sent him, Jn17:21. So the Holy Spirit is scattering and dividing people of faith. Mt12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and HE THAT GATHERETH NOT WITH ME SCATTERETH abroad. Remember when Christ was accused of casting out devils by Beelzebub and said a kingdom divided cannot stand, Mt12:24-28. Christ only divides those who hate him from those who love him. Your theory Christ came to divide is one of the worse attempts I have ever seen to justify the thousands of divisions caused by sola scriptura.

 

[jlhargus]

Another point is If the early church felt that these 7 or 9 books should have been included in the Jewish cannon, by the writers, then why does the Catholic church call these books the 2nd cannon. ( Deuterocanonical ).

JL: Second canon of the OT are those books that some disputed. The first canon or list of the OT all agreed on. Just as with the New Testament there was a first canon or LIST which all agreed on. Then there was the second canon which was disputed such as the book of Hebrews, Revelations, Jude and a couple others. These were the New Testament Deuterocanonical books.

I’m glad you came back, I think you will leave with a better understanding of the real Catholic Church instead of misconceptions as I once had also.

 

[erikd]

  Also St. Jerome who translated your Vulgate agreed with the Jewish cannon of 39 books and said the apocrypha should only be considered as historical writings. However the Church went against his beliefs and added these books into the Vulgate only because they were included in the Septuagint as an amendment.

In order to be fair, we also have to state that St. Jerome agreed with the authority of the Church and defended it. This is what Jerome had to say of people who shared your opinion:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

  Also none of the apocryphal writings were written in Hebrew, and could never have been included in the Hebrew cannon.

Are you espousing your own criteria for Canonical writings? Is Hebrew an absolute necessity? If an Alexandrian Jew writes a Book for a Jewish audience in Egypt, would Greek not make more sense?

Tobit: In 1955, fragments of the Book were recovered from cave IV at Qumran, and written in Hebrew.

Judith: We now know, based on the language used, this Book was written in Hebrew.

Wisdom: Written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew who lived in Egypt. If this book is to be excluded based on the fact that it was written in Greek, should we then also remove all the Greek New Testament Books?

Sirach: Written in Hebrew by a sage who liven in Jerusalem.

Baruch: Parts of this Book (the prose) were written in Hebrew while the rest in Greek. Remember, Baruch was the secretary of Jeremiah, a well accepted Old Testament Book.

1 Maccabees: Written about 100 BC in Hebrew, though the original text is no longer available. The Greek translation that survived is full of Hebrew idioms.

2 Maccabees: Written in Greek, perhaps we should discard all other Books written in Greek.

 

[RNRobert]

In the book of Galatians, St. Paul tells us that if someone, or even an angel from heaven proclaimed a gospel different from the one he proclaimed, to let that person be anathema. Here is my problem. I was not in Galatia 2,000 years ago when St. Paul proclaimed the Gospel. So, when various groups come to my door or approach me on the street with a Bible in their hand and preaching the “Gospel,” how am I to know which one is real and which one is counterfeit? Some say that Baptism is necessary, some say it isn’t. Some claim Jesus is fully God, some say he is just a man. Some believe in the Trinity, some do not. Some worship on Sundays, but others say that is the Mark of the Beast and that we must worship on the Jewish Sabbath. All of these groups are “preaching the gospel,” but how do I tell which one is is the original one proclaimed by Paul- in other words:

[SIGN]Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up?[/SIGN]

Suppose when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they simply handed it out to all Americans and said, “decide for yourself what it means.” You would have anarchy (which is what you have outside the Catholic Church). Instead they created a Supreme Court that would be the final arbiter. This is why an authoritative Church is needed- to keep the Scriptures from being perverted by those who would twist and distort it to suit their own ends.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Todd Easton: Nicodemus is asking in verse 4 how can a man be born twice. Nicodemous is the one who brings up the possibility of being born twice. Jesus is answering his question like this. Yes you must be born the first time, but Nicodemous please understand me that you must think in the spirit, you must be born of the water ( flesh ) and the spirit. Jesus is trying to explain being born of the spirit to Nicodemous who is thinking about being born twice from a mothers womb. I am not the one who created the idea of 2 births, it was Nicodemous. And your exactly right in verse 6 Jesus is telling him that yes there is indeed 2 births, that of flesh and that of spirit. We are all born of water, but we must be born of the spirit now. We need to be born twice, thats exactly what their talking about in these passages.

Nicodemus’ genuine question was how a grown man could be born again. His question about entering his mother’s womb a second time was rhetorical. Jesus answered only his genuine question about being born again and ignored the rhetorical question about his mother’s womb.

You are reading more into the Bible text of John 3:5 than is actually there. When Jesus said, “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit…,” he was speaking of only one birth, a single birth involving both water and the Spirit; this is what Greek experts say the original Greek means. If he was referring to two separate births here, Jesus would have said the equivalent of, “…unless one is born of water and of the Spirit…” or “…unless one is born of water and born of the Spirit.”

You would have Jesus say in effect in John 3:5, In order for a man who has already been born of the flesh to be born anew, he must, well, first be born of the flesh and then he must later be born of the Spirit, which seems grossly redundant to me. It makes much more sense that the close proximity of the John 3:3 and John 3:5 and the identical construction of Jesus’ solemn statements, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is ___, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” that the words “born of water and the Spirit” in verse 5 are equivalent to the words “born anew” in verse 3.

I agree water is not always symbolic of spirit, but it is almost always symbolic of something. Johns water was symbolic of repentance, and he even drove away some pharacies who wanted to be baptized by him but had no fruit of repentance. The water baptism of John would not have given them repentance, they needed to repent to be baptized, just like water baptism now does not wash away sin and save you, but you need your sin washed away and already have salvation to be baptized. Water also symbolizes the word of God. So if we look at the context of the verse we are trying to understand, the context will tell us what the analogy is.

With respect to the meaning of the word “water” in John 3:5, the references to “water” nearest to John 3:5 are the water in the stone jars which Jesus changed into wine at Cana mentioned in John 2:1-11 and the water with which John was baptizing people at Aenon mentioned in John 3:23. These are clearly references to real water. There is no reason, therefore, to conclude that the water mentioned in John 3:5 means something other than real water. On the other hand, some references to “born” closest to John 3:5, “born anew” in John 3:3 and “born of the Spirit” in John 3:6, do not refer to a real birth, coming forth from a mother’s womb, but something analogous to real birth. Therefore, there is better reason to think that “born” in John 3:5 refers to something analogous to birth involving real water (and the Spirit) than a real birth.

With respect to baptism and salvation, the Bible says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16) Notice that belief and baptism are two conditions that must be satisfied before salvation is attained. It does not say, "He who believes will be saved and then its a good idea that he be baptized to symbolize that he was saved.

Similarly, with respect to baptism and the forgiveness of sins, the Bible says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38) Notice that repentance and baptism are two conditions that must be satisfied before the forgiveness of sins is attained. It does not say, "Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and then its a good idea that you be baptized to symbolize that your sins were forgiven.

When Paul says there is but one baptism he is saying it is of the spirit, not water…

Your statement ignores clear references in the Bible to Christian baptisms with real water, such as Acts 8:36-38 (Ethiopian eunuch) and Acts 10:47 (Cornelius and company). So, either Christian baptism with real water and the baptism of the Spirit occur at the same time and therefore constitute but one baptism or there are two unrelated baptisms. Since Paul says there is only one baptism, it is reasonable to conclude that Christian baptism with water and baptism of the Spirit occur at the same time and therefore constitute but one baptism.

 

[BibleAnswer]

if a person is born of water and spirit, and this means a literal baptism with actual water by an ordained priest, then doesn’t this conflict with faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

This proves the biblical parable about Wheat and Tares. There would be no tares if all one needed to do was to believe on the LORD and be baptised, If that was the case threre would be only wheat and true believers because the baptism invoked the holy spirit which is truth, and a person who accepted Christ and has the Holy spirit cannot be intrinsictly evil can they? This would disprove the whole point of Tares, and I know they are very important to understanding the bible, it is one of Christs most recognisable parables. However if we understand that wheat and tares do exist, then a different understanding must be reached about “why” there are tares mixed with the wheat in Gods church.

However the verse faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God would seem to contradict that because it is saying that only by the hearing of the word, can a person be saved, and saved person has the Holy Spirit which would make them a wheat.

How to you rectify the two. One isn’t mutually exclusive of the other. People all through the world have no inkling of what church is or for that matter, the Gospel. However if all they managed to find was a single piece of paper with a single verse, then that would be adequete to bring the holy spirit cause faith is by hearing, in which case water baptism plays no part in the persons salvation; infact couldn’t we then understand what has happened to that person as, being baptised by the holy spirit, sense it was that single scrap of paper with a verse on it, and that person read it, and immediately believed on the LORD because of it, then the Holy spirit would descend upon them and they would apart of all the wheat, of all the true believers.

Does that mean that they must then find, accept, and join the catholic church to actually establish the holy spirit for reals. or did Christ already do all the work in saving that person, because they happen to hear the word and they believed and was saved.

but if you read this spiritually, then you would be in accord with the verse, faith comes by hearing, becaue in this case, the water would be metaphore for scripture. in which case you can rectify the two verses by saying, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, the Word of God, is the water of Truth, is the water of Salvation, is the water of everlasting life, (spiritually) in which case a person would be baptisem by water and spirit, sense they would have heard the word, which is metaphore for water, then they would become baptised by the holy spirit, which comes by hearing the word of God. In which case an actual water baptism would be a minunderstanding.

I know this argument is all over the place, but i am at work soo.

anyway,. i am trying a new tactic. we have here a bunch of different opinions about verses, however i hold true to the fact that they all fit together, they all must be in accord with the spiritual meaning that the bible tells us. so in this case, I established how these two verses fit in accord by understanding the spiritual meaning and they seem to fit dont they?

Any opinions.?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Johns water was symbolic of repentance, and he even drove away some pharacies who wanted to be baptized by him but had no fruit of repentance. The water baptism of John would not have given them repentance, they needed to repent to be baptized, just like water baptism now does not wash away sin and save you, but you need your sin washed away and already have salvation to be baptized.

I don’t know where you came up with the idea that the water used in John’s baptism was symbolic of repentance. It is true that repentance was required before the reception of John’s baptism but I checked my Bible and it says that John’s baptism was “for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3)

If the water used in John’s baptism was symbolic of anything it was symbolic of the washing away or forgiveness of sins that his baptism effected. Similarly, the water used in Christian baptism is symbolic of both the washing away or forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Spirit that Christian baptism effects.

 

[Todd_Easton]

if a person is born of water and spirit, and this means a literal baptism with actual water by an ordained priest, then doesn’t this conflict with faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
…
Any opinions.?

I wish I could offer you a short and easy-to-understand treatment that explains the justification process from a Catholic perspective. Until I find one, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Justification” will have to do. In it you’ll find explanation how hearing the word of God leads to repentance and faith and faith leads to water baptism and justification.

 

[Todd_Easton]

if a person is born of water and spirit, and this means a literal baptism with actual water by an ordained priest, then doesn’t this conflict with faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

In 1 Cor 1:10-17; 3:4-9, St. Paul likens the justification process to a planting. The preacher of the word of God “plants” the seed. The minister of baptism “waters” the seed, providing the necessary agent for the seed planted by the preacher to germinate into a new plant.

 

[BibleAnswer]

In 1 Cor 1:10-17; 3:4-9, St. Paul likens the justification process to a planting. The preacher of the word of God “plants” the seed. The minister of baptism “waters” the seed, providing the necessary agent for the seed planted by the preacher to germinate into a new plant.

two points:

how do you justify the following:

faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and; to be born of water and spirit…

Wheat and Tares; if the preacher that plants the seed is a tare, or the teacher the plants the seed is a tare, then the person being taught will recieve an alltogether different gospel, meaning, the fullness of Christs gospel will be corrupted by the teaching of the tare who misunderstood what he learned. In addition, if the person that baptises you is a tare, how would you know, you wouldn’t, only God can discern a heart, so you run a risk of being baptisd by a man who is not in full harmony with God. The man thinks he is a believer, but he is not, as is the definition of a tare. So would the baptism be valid if the man who baptised you is a tare, and how would you even know?

the faith that comes by hearing, is the water of God, that is the water aspect, and faith come by hearing, of hearing the water of truth, only one truth, the ultimate truth, and then as a believer, we are promised the holy spirit from Christ.

And this leads to the point of faith comes by hearing. How does that person living in a part of the world with no clue of the bible or church, and that person finds a bible track, or a scrap of paper with a verse on it, then if that person is a believer, the holy spirt will descend upon that person. And that is all the work required for that person. done by God already.

So just so we are clear about having complete accord with more than one concept or precept which is taught in the bible, a student of the bible must find the connection right?

Again, one is not mutually exclusive of the other, For the person that finds the scrap of paper and believes because of the scripture they read, then the holy spirit is upon them regardless of any other work.

To be in accord, to understand the fullness of the bible, you gotta connect these two concepts right?

if that person who finds the paper with the verse believes and is saved, then that means that the holy spirit baptised them. That means that they were reborn already.

No water was needed. no literal water.

however if you want to be in accord, then,

you must understand that to be born of water and spirit means that a person must find the word of God, must be exposed to it, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and when they are exposed and believe, and become saved, then that means that they had become born of water and spirit. just looking at this statement as it is makes no sense. because where was the water aspect. However we cant deny that the person who found the scrap and read it and believed and was saved, is saved, We cant deny that right, because faith comes by hearing. If both of these verses tell us the same thing, namely, how to become saved, then even though it is different language, it still must equal the same thing. For God isn’t going to tell us two seperate ways of doing something. But what he does do Is speak in parable so for the person can see without seeing, and hear without hearing, remember reading that, how can we see and not see what is right on the page, or hear and not understand what is in our face on the page. Already these two verses about being saved are different language and seem to say two seperate things. One is not mutally exclusive, they are both inclusive, they both say and teach the same thing, namely how to become saved.

however how does this make sense, for the person is a believer, and yet all they did was hear the word of God.

The word of God is the water that washes away sin.; Sense we all know that Christ did all the work, then it would be correct to say that His Word did all the work for us already, and by believing the report which we read, then we are washed of our sins and reborn by spirit because the holy spirit descends.

No water, no priest to plant the seed, and no water to make the seed grow.

If you read this spiritually, then the word of God, washes the sin, and once washed, the holy spirit descends upon you and baptises you in spirit. The water of truth, of everlasting, of glory, of love, is Gods word correct? Gods word has all the appropriate qualities to completely save a person.

A saved person is a Wheat, a wheat is a wheat because of the gift of God. The gift is all the work the Christ has already done, His word is adequete to save a person.

So what is the prevailing opinion about making these two well known bible verses fit together in harmony. You cant define one verse, and then define another verse and not have them fit together especially when the context for both is speaking of how to be saved. God does not tell us how to be saved, then in the next chapter or book, tell us a completely different way, or an alternate way, No they both say the same thing with different language.

Topically if you read it, you cant make the two verses fit together in accord.
Spiritually, you can. The word of God, which is Holy Scripture, is the water of Life, believing in the report which you read with all your heart is a good indication that you are a saved person. If you are a saved person then you have the holy spirit on you to lead you into truth.

This is how i understand the one concept being taught by these two seperate verses. Spiritually we are in accord and now the fullness of the gospel can be studied more accurately.

Thoughts?

 

[fbl9]

two points:

how do you justify the following:

faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and; to be born of water and spirit…

Wheat and Tares; if the preacher that plants the seed is a tare, or the teacher the plants the seed is a tare, then the person being taught will recieve an alltogether different gospel, meaning, the fullness of Christs gospel will be corrupted by the teaching of the tare who misunderstood what he learned. In addition, if the person that baptises you is a tare, how would you know, you wouldn’t, only God can discern a heart, so you run a risk of being baptisd by a man who is not in full harmony with God. The man thinks he is a believer, but he is not, as is the definition of a tare. So would the baptism be valid if the man who baptised you is a tare, and how would you even know?

the faith that comes by hearing, is the water of God, that is the water aspect, and faith come by hearing, of hearing the water of truth, only one truth, the ultimate truth, and then as a believer, we are promised the holy spirit from Christ.

And this leads to the point of faith comes by hearing. How does that person living in a part of the world with no clue of the bible or church, and that person finds a bible track, or a scrap of paper with a verse on it, then if that person is a believer, the holy spirt will descend upon that person. And that is all the work required for that person. done by God already.

So just so we are clear about having complete accord with more than one concept or precept which is taught in the bible, a student of the bible must find the connection right?

Again, one is not mutually exclusive of the other, For the person that finds the scrap of paper and believes because of the scripture they read, then the holy spirit is upon them regardless of any other work.

To be in accord, to understand the fullness of the bible, you gotta connect these two concepts right?

if that person who finds the paper with the verse believes and is saved, then that means that the holy spirit baptised them. That means that they were reborn already.

No water was needed. no literal water.

however if you want to be in accord, then,

you must understand that to be born of water and spirit means that a person must find the word of God, must be exposed to it, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and when they are exposed and believe, and become saved, then that means that they had become born of water and spirit. just looking at this statement as it is makes no sense. because where was the water aspect. However we cant deny that the person who found the scrap and read it and believed and was saved, is saved, We cant deny that right, because faith comes by hearing. If both of these verses tell us the same thing, namely, how to become saved, then even though it is different language, it still must equal the same thing. For God isn’t going to tell us two seperate ways of doing something. But what he does do Is speak in parable so for the person can see without seeing, and hear without hearing, remember reading that, how can we see and not see what is right on the page, or hear and not understand what is in our face on the page. Already these two verses about being saved are different language and seem to say two seperate things. One is not mutally exclusive, they are both inclusive, they both say and teach the same thing, namely how to become saved.

however how does this make sense, for the person is a believer, and yet all they did was hear the word of God.

The word of God is the water that washes away sin.; Sense we all know that Christ did all the work, then it would be correct to say that His Word did all the work for us already, and by believing the report which we read, then we are washed of our sins and reborn by spirit because the holy spirit descends.

No water, no priest to plant the seed, and no water to make the seed grow.

If you read this spiritually, then the word of God, washes the sin, and once washed, the holy spirit descends upon you and baptises you in spirit. The water of truth, of everlasting, of glory, of love, is Gods word correct? Gods word has all the appropriate qualities to completely save a person.

A saved person is a Wheat, a wheat is a wheat because of the gift of God. The gift is all the work the Christ has already done, His word is adequete to save a person.

So what is the prevailing opinion about making these two well known bible verses fit together in harmony. You cant define one verse, and then define another verse and not have them fit together especially when the context for both is speaking of how to be saved. God does not tell us how to be saved, then in the next chapter or book, tell us a completely different way, or an alternate way, No they both say the same thing with different language.

Topically if you read it, you cant make the two verses fit together in accord.
Spiritually, you can. The word of God, which is Holy Scripture, is the water of Life, believing in the report which you read with all your heart is a good indication that you are a saved person. If you are a saved person then you have the holy spirit on you to lead you into truth.

This is how i understand the one concept being taught by these two seperate verses. Spiritually we are in accord and now the fullness of the gospel can be studied more accurately.

Thoughts?

As a normal baptism an ordained priest does the baptising,however for a baptism to be valid the person pouring the water needs not to be even christain just the person recieving the baptsim needs to be the beleiver…and of course there are even expections to this rule…in a nutshell the person who is performing the baptism regardless of thier faith does not affect the validity of a baptism…

Questions for you bibleanswer: when one joins your group are they baptised?Does this person baptise themselves? Who “normally” does the baptising in your church?

Will the person in your example have a complete knowledge of God from that one verse?

 

[fbl9]

Bilbeanser another question.

After reading St.Peter’s discoarse in the book Acts of the apostle’s 2:14-36 which verse of scripture turned these men’s hearts.?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Wheat and Tares; if the preacher that plants the seed is a tare…

I think Peter’s address to the Jews on Pentecost in Acts 2:14-41 reconciles the verses you had questions about (‘faith comes from hearing’ and ‘born of water and the Spirit’). Peter preached the word of God. Those Jews who heard him and were open to it believed in Jesus as their Lord and Messiah (faith came from hearing) and were “cut to the heart” and asked what they should do next. Peter told them to repent (of their past sins) and to be baptized (with water) for the forgiveness of their (past) sins and they would (at the same time) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And thousands were baptized with water that day and received the Holy Spirit (were ‘born of water and the Spirit’).

In your statements about the wheat and the tares, you seem to subscribe to the idea of “once saved always saved.” This notion is contrary to Jesus’ teaching in the parable of the seed in Matthew 13:4-23, where some of those who receive the word of God and persevere in it for a while later fall away because of tribulation, persecution, the cares of the world, or the delight in riches. It is also contradicted by Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:20-21 on the need for Christians to remain faithful and to be fearful because, if God did not spare some of the natural branches (the Jews) because of their unbelief, he will certainly not spare the wild branches (Christians) that were grafted in.

Your assertion that ‘only the baptism of an ordained priest is valid’ is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It teaches that anyone (bishops, priests, deacons, laymen, laywomen, Catholics, non-Catholics, Christians, even non-Christians and atheists) can act as a minister of baptism and validly baptize someone, as long as the minister of baptism intends to perform a Christian baptism and uses fresh water and the Trinitarian formula for baptism, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (See Matthew 28:19) So, it really doesn’t matter whether you were baptized by Paul, Apollos, or Cephas or Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot because you are not baptized in their name but in Christ’s name; whoever baptized you was simply the minister through whom you became a believer. (See 1 Cor 1:12-15; 3:4-5) It should be noted that baptism is performed on believers, in the case those who have reached the age of reason (minors and adults), and, in the case of those who have not yet reached the age of reason (infants), ordinarily only when there is a well-founded hope that they will be brought up in the faith or if their death is immanent.

The Catholic Church desiring that everything touching the Church be done properly and in an orderly manner (see 1 Cor 14:40) has enacted church laws that establish ordained men (bishops, priests, and deacons) as the ordinary ministers of baptism. So, baptisms performed by unordained people may not always be licit but, if done with the proper intent, matter and form, they are always valid.

With respect to the necessity of water baptism, the Catholic Church teaches that, though water baptism is the ordinary, sacramental means established by Jesus Christ to receive the baptism of the Spirit, if water baptism is impossible to obtain, then the explicit desire for water baptism is enough to receive the baptism of the Spirit or, if water baptism is unknown through no fault of the individual, then the implicit desire for water baptism (the desire to do God’s will) is enough to receive the baptism of the Spirit. It being understood that God does not require of us what is impossible for us nor does he require what we are ignorant of and, though God established water baptism as the ordinary, sacramental means to receive the baptism of the Spirit, He is still free to bestow the baptism of the Spirit on whomever whenever He wants. So, the Catholic Church grants that your person who reads only a verse from the Bible, repents of his past sins and believes in God and tries to do God’s will as he understands it may receive the baptism of the Spirit apart from water baptism, if it is impossible for him to receive water baptism or if he is invincibly ignorant of it.

 

[BibleAnswer]

Todd, good response my friend, now we can work on the meat of the word and see what we see with our discourse. Here is a little better understanding of the examples you gave.

Acts 2:14-41 King James Version

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
…
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Before we continue, let us clarify the text, as it says repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus. and they that gladly received his word were baptized

To completely understand this, we cant make the verse say what we want it to say. As we already know, baptism can have two meanings, the baptism by water like what John did, and this was to prepar the way for the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit. And the second would be the baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Now as we read the text spiritually, we can assertain that what “GOD” said, because remember, this discourse is written and recorded in the bible, this is Gods Word spoken through Peter, and God is saying repent, and be baptised in the Holy spirit. There is not one instance in this discourse where water can possibly be confused with spirit. these men that were cut to the heart, were hearing the word of God. Even the explanation of the three instances where Peter quoted from the Old Testament the prophet Joel and King David twice, the explanation between the verse, was still from God. We can know this because it is in the Book of Acts, which is in the Bible.

Now, until we see clearly that Peter is talking about the baptism that john the Baptist would have performed, then we can safely bet that the baptism that happened during Pentecost while Peter preached, was the Holy Spirit descending, this was the rushing of Wind, the breath of God so to speak, this was the sound heard, it was the Holy spirit, and they heard the disiples speaking in Tongue, which is a clear indication of prophsizing by the Holy spirit. John the baptist baptised by water, God baptizes by Holy spirit. This chapter proves this point and the confusion about water is a gross misunderstanding.

the men were cut to the heart and believed Peters word, which more accuratley we can say is Gods word spoken by Peter, and the bible says that they that ‘gladly recieved the word were baptised,’ the baptism that was performed was to recieve a brand new resurected spirit, meaning they are no longer bound by original sin and are not spiritually dead anymore. This is Gods work, and God is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, meaning God, will be the one to wash the sin away.

Water was never mentioned and is not the baptism Peter is referring to. This single point needs to be understood before you can move on and gain a better understanding and grown spiritually.

 

[BibleAnswer]

You used the parable of the seed, lets clarify this as well,

Matthew 13 (King James Version)

18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one [SATAN], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25But while men slept, his enemy [SATAN] came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The Tares are the bad seed. it is the seed that is devoured, the seed that is choked by the thorns and the seed that fell by the wayside. The Wheat, who are the true believers, and the Tares, who think they are saved yet are not, are mixed together. Now where would believers of God go to be mixed together, that would be Gods house, the church. In the church, where people worship our LORD, there are Wheat and Tares. and they are mixed together. And it is Gods plan on the finale day, Judgment day, to seperate the Wheat from the Tares, and to burn the tares.

This is clear evidence that in a church, are people with no spiritual understanding. A person with no spiritual understanding is a tare, a tare is bundled along with the rest of the chaff and burned. A tare that is burned in the church on the last day, is going to be weeping and Gnashing there teeth at God as they watch the believers gathered up and raptured. and the tare who followed the LORd, who believed they had faith enough to be saved, will be watching the believers being caught up, and they will weep and Gnash their teeth at God and curse God and finally understand that they are in Judgment day, and that they are under Gods wrath, for they believed there whole life they were safe and now they see they are not. And God wil say, as it is written, depart from me, I never knew you.

If a tare can be in a church, and destroyed with the rest of the world on the last day, then there is a major flaw in everybody’s logic. Being in communion with our LORD, the eucherist, confessions, mass, litigies, baptisms, etc, all of these works are meant to bring the church goer closer to God and bring them into the body of believers that are going to heaven.

yet the bible just said that there are tares in the church. This means you cannot trust anything you did or was performed in the church for the benefit of your salvation, because as the bible says, there are still tares no matter what,

If you can rectify this with your own human logic and still feel safe in the church after this quick study we got going on here, then that is on you. I would be of the school of thought, that if i just learned this, i would be spending more time in the bible trying to prove it somehow before i asked a priest to explain or anybody else. again even a priest can be a tare, a tare has no spiritual ears, how can you ask for spiritual understanding from a person with no spiritual ears. So where do you go, to find an answer from a place you know is nothing but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, that is the Bible.
Now this is a very scary thought, but people will either scoff at the idea or rebuke what i am trying to teach from the bible.

yet if you can read this, and not grasp even a single concept, rest assured you are the person who does not yet have there spiritual ears.

and this follows on the heels of why i believe that we are to flee the church and find grace only in the Word of God, that is the bible.

thoughts?

 

[fbl9]

Now, until we see clearly that Peter is talking about the baptism that john the Baptist would have performed, then we can safely bet that the baptism that happened during Pentecost while Peter preached, was the Holy Spirit descending, this was the rushing of Wind, the breath of God so to speak, this was the sound heard, it was the Holy spirit, and they heard the disiples speaking in Tongue, which is a clear indication of prophsizing by the Holy spirit. John the baptist baptised by water, God baptizes by Holy spirit. This chapter proves this point and the confusion about water is a gross misunderstanding.

.

Bibleanswer you better do some rereading here…St.Peter was preaching after the Pentacost not during…

 

[WALTHER]

BibleAnswer writes:

yet the bible just said that there are tares in the church. This means you cannot trust anything you did or was performed in the church for the benefit of your salvation, because as the bible says, there are still tares no matter what,

You are right that their will be, to the end of the age, tares within the Church of Christ. This truth is made plain by the text of Scripture and the witness of history, as many men have creeped in unawares, perverting the Gospel of Jesus Christ; denying the written Word; condeming what Christ has instituted and commanded; etc.

However, it seems you forget that the text includes this statement, namely, that, although the tares are within the Church of God, yet it is the wheat who will abide among them.

That is to say, you are promoting and promulgating a false and pernicious error when you say that we are not to trust in the Word preached or the Sacraments received within the Lord’s house, simply because they may have been preached by, or received from, a tare.

Does the Word of God lose its power if it is spoken through the lips of a heretic? [clearly it does not, as your citing of Scripture has not changed the Scripture’s meaning; rather it is only your exegesis–*nay, eisegesis–that is sorely mistaken]

If I receive the Body and Blood of my Lord, believing in His words: "This is My Body, which is given for you." And likewise, "This is My Blood of the New Testament, shed for you and for all, that sins might be forgiven," etc., what has the sinfulness of the one administering the Body and Blood have to do with it? Our trust is not in the one administering, but in the One who is administered.

Therefore, the same can be said of Holy Baptism, which works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. As St. Paul writes in Titus chapter 3:

"He saved us…by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy." [vv. 5-8]

Notice here how St. Paul unites the washing of regeneration with the renewal of the Holy Spirit, as they are one and the same. As St. Peter writes, “Bapism now saves us.” And as Christ told His Apostles:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [Mark 16:16]

You then write:

If you can rectify this with your own human logic and still feel safe in the church after this quick study we got going on here, then that is on you. I would be of the school of thought, that if i just learned this, i would be spending more time in the bible trying to prove it somehow before i asked a priest to explain or anybody else. again even a priest can be a tare, a tare has no spiritual ears, how can you ask for spiritual understanding from a person with no spiritual ears. So where do you go, to find an answer from a place you know is nothing but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, that is the Bible.
Now this is a very scary thought, but people will either scoff at the idea or rebuke what i am trying to teach from the bible.

yet if you can read this, and not grasp even a single concept, rest assured you are the person who does not yet have there spiritual ears.

and this follows on the heels of why i believe that we are to flee the church and find grace only in the Word of God, that is the bible.

Are you a follower of Harold Camping and Family Radio Ministries?

I ask because this is precisely what he teaches, namely, the satanic overthrow and possession of the churches, so that no one can, without endangering their very soul, trust in the Word preached or the Sacraments received if they are received at the hands of “satan’s Church”.

Yet, why believe Harold Camping? How is it that he is exempt from this “satanic delusion” of the Church?

It seems, rather than being a Biblically based teaching, it is merely a ploy of Mr. Camping (and, indeed, yourself) to distract the sheep from their true Shepherd, in order that they may be ever drawn to your heretical howls that echo in the night.

No, BibleAnswer, you do not teach from Scripture, but from your own vain and puffed up theological ego. But do not think as though we who reject your manifest heresies are in someway without our “spiritual ears”, instead our rejection is due solely to our ears being directed toward another, namely, our Savior, our Shepherd, our Lord; the Word, the Way, the Light, and the Truth: Jesus Christ, in whom we have been baptized with a gracious and holy water of regeneration.

AMEN, AMEN; THAT IS, "YES, YES, IT SHALL BE SO."

WALTHER

 

[juliamajor]

two points:

how do you justify the following:

faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and; to be born of water and spirit…

Wheat and Tares; if the preacher that plants the seed is a tare, or the teacher the plants the seed is a tare, then the person being taught will recieve an alltogether different gospel, meaning, the fullness of Christs gospel will be corrupted by the teaching of the tare who misunderstood what he learned. In addition, if the person that baptises you is a tare, how would you know, you wouldn’t, only God can discern a heart, so you run a risk of being baptisd by a man who is not in full harmony with God. The man thinks he is a believer, but he is not, as is the definition of a tare. So would the baptism be valid if the man who baptised you is a tare, and how would you even know?

the faith that comes by hearing, is the water of God, that is the water aspect, and faith come by hearing, of hearing the water of truth, only one truth, the ultimate truth, and then as a believer, we are promised the holy spirit from Christ.

And this leads to the point of faith comes by hearing. How does that person living in a part of the world with no clue of the bible or church, and that person finds a bible track, or a scrap of paper with a verse on it, then if that person is a believer, the holy spirt will descend upon that person. And that is all the work required for that person. done by God already.

So just so we are clear about having complete accord with more than one concept or precept which is taught in the bible, a student of the bible must find the connection right?

Again, one is not mutually exclusive of the other, For the person that finds the scrap of paper and believes because of the scripture they read, then the holy spirit is upon them regardless of any other work.

To be in accord, to understand the fullness of the bible, you gotta connect these two concepts right?

if that person who finds the paper with the verse believes and is saved, then that means that the holy spirit baptised them. That means that they were reborn already.

No water was needed. no literal water.

however if you want to be in accord, then,

you must understand that to be born of water and spirit means that a person must find the word of God, must be exposed to it, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and when they are exposed and believe, and become saved, then that means that they had become born of water and spirit. just looking at this statement as it is makes no sense. because where was the water aspect. However we cant deny that the person who found the scrap and read it and believed and was saved, is saved, We cant deny that right, because faith comes by hearing. If both of these verses tell us the same thing, namely, how to become saved, then even though it is different language, it still must equal the same thing. For God isn’t going to tell us two seperate ways of doing something. But what he does do Is speak in parable so for the person can see without seeing, and hear without hearing, remember reading that, how can we see and not see what is right on the page, or hear and not understand what is in our face on the page. Already these two verses about being saved are different language and seem to say two seperate things. One is not mutally exclusive, they are both inclusive, they both say and teach the same thing, namely how to become saved.

however how does this make sense, for the person is a believer, and yet all they did was hear the word of God.

The word of God is the water that washes away sin.; Sense we all know that Christ did all the work, then it would be correct to say that His Word did all the work for us already, and by believing the report which we read, then we are washed of our sins and reborn by spirit because the holy spirit descends.

No water, no priest to plant the seed, and no water to make the seed grow.

If you read this spiritually, then the word of God, washes the sin, and once washed, the holy spirit descends upon you and baptises you in spirit. The water of truth, of everlasting, of glory, of love, is Gods word correct? Gods word has all the appropriate qualities to completely save a person.

A saved person is a Wheat, a wheat is a wheat because of the gift of God. The gift is all the work the Christ has already done, His word is adequete to save a person.

So what is the prevailing opinion about making these two well known bible verses fit together in harmony. You cant define one verse, and then define another verse and not have them fit together especially when the context for both is speaking of how to be saved. God does not tell us how to be saved, then in the next chapter or book, tell us a completely different way, or an alternate way, No they both say the same thing with different language.

Topically if you read it, you cant make the two verses fit together in accord.
Spiritually, you can. The word of God, which is Holy Scripture, is the water of Life, believing in the report which you read with all your heart is a good indication that you are a saved person. If you are a saved person then you have the holy spirit on you to lead you into truth.

This is how i understand the one concept being taught by these two seperate verses. Spiritually we are in accord and now the fullness of the gospel can be studied more accurately.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are the wheat and tares analogy is getting a little over-used and long in the tooth.It’s been pulled so far that it’s got stretch marks!

 

[fbl9]

St.Pauls epistle to the Ephesians 5:26,that He might sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water by means of the word:…one could say that’s what bibleanswer is trying to do here cleansing the church with the word…
yet for some strange reason bibleanswer can’t admit to the church having any authority,despite what our Lord had to say on the matter.What use in salvation is a church that can’t say with authority this is what there is to beleive