John 3:8 and 1 Peter 3:21

[AnselmIHSV]

Hello all,

I was hoping that I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut on a couple of versus that I would like to understand better.

I have read Haydock’s commentary, St. Thomas’ and also Agape Bible Study. I’ve also done some Google research.

First one is John 3:8. - Trying to keep everything in context I’ve come to 2 guesstimates. First one is that what our Lord is telling Nicodemus is that Through Baptism the Spirit is invisible and we know not where it comes from or where it’s going but we can certainly feel His presence and see the effects of His divine work. The Second guess is that the Lord is also referring to the Holy Spirit working prior to Baptism in a supernatural way to Draw people to the Church. So in other words, we know not where the Spirit is going to do His work of convicting and drawing people to the true faith.

My main desire in this verse is to try to understand better the doctrine of regeneration and the economy of salvation. It is clear to me that the Church teaches that Baptism is the first order of regeneration, but of course there are those outside of the Church that don’t agree with that and espouse that people can be “born again” and or regenerated simply by the work of the Holy Spirit apart from the Church. … and or that Baptism is just an “ordinance” or ceremony to demonstrate and confirm “outwardly” of the regenerative work already done “inwardly” by the Holy Spirit to an individual bringing them into saving faith “born again” apart from the sacraments and or outside of the Church.

My main focus here isn’t on a deep discussion about baptism and or John 3:5-7. My main focus is to better understand the meaning of John 3:8. Thanks.

Second verse is 1 Peter 3:21. Again involving baptism.

I’m having a hard time understanding what St. Peter means by “not washing away the filth or dirt from the flesh or body?” But rather baptism is a clear conscience.

The way that I’m thinking the meaning is here is that; baptism doesn’t do anything “outwardly” but is an “inward” work of the heart. So in other words, as a Catholic, we can’t just think that just as long as we are members of the Church and have been baptized, confirmed, married… etc… etc… and receive the Eucharist that we are going to be saved just by doing those things, … if we don’t have true faith and a true love in our hearts for Christ.

Again, not so much wanting and in-depth discussion on Baptism, just clarification on the verse.

Thanks.

 

[Nita]

Second verse is 1 Peter 3:21. Again involving baptism.

I’m having a hard time understanding what St. Peter means by “not washing away the filth or dirt from the flesh or body?” But rather baptism is a clear conscience.
.

IMO, Peter is saying baptism isn’t for washing the physical dirt off our bodies - it is for cleansing our souls of sin, leaving our consciences clean/clear since there is no longer sin present. At the time of Baptism, all sin is cleansed from our soul – Original Sin and any personal sin/s.
(Recall that one of the “activities” of our conscience is to convict us of our sins – to make us aware of our sin. cf. John 16:8)

 

[NotWorthy]

The way that I’m thinking the meaning is here is that; baptism doesn’t do anything “outwardly” but is an “inward” work of the heart. So in other words, as a Catholic, we can’t just think that just as long as we are members of the Church and have been baptized, confirmed, married… etc… etc… and receive the Eucharist that we are going to be saved just by doing those things, …** if we don’t have true faith and a true love in our hearts for Christ. **

You are absolutely right in the bolded part, and doubly right in the underlined part. We must love Christ and others in order to keep our Salvation (that is first gained in Baptism). As obedient children of God, Catholics need to do these things you described, but all those actions mean nothing if they are no done out of love for God!

 

[AnselmIHSV]

The only thing that I’m still hung up on is that why would St. Peter make that analogy - because in infant baptism it is more like removing dirt from the body rather than a providing a clean conscience; unless, I’m guessing that when the infant turns into a youth and learns about it’s baptism, then at that point it effects the consience?

I was hoping to get someone to comment on John 3:8 if possible too.

Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

The only thing that I’m still hung up on is that why would St. Peter make that analogy - because in infant baptism it is more like removing dirt from the body rather than a providing a clean conscience; unless, I’m guessing that when the infant turns into a youth and learns about it’s baptism, then at that point it effects the consience?

I was hoping to get someone to comment on John 3:8 if possible too.

Thanks.

The “Clean Conscience” is the “removal of Original Sin”. We are no longer tied down with Original Sin, like our ancestors were before the origination of baptism.

John 3:8 - The wind*** blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit***.”

I don’t understand what your question is with John 3:8. The Holy Spirit is going to “do His thing”. He will work through even the most mundane things in order to further God’s Will.

Let me give you an example. Someone walks down the beach and watches a particularly beautiful sunset. He’s seen the sunset a bazillion times, but for some reason, this sunset affects him and for once, he truly sees the Glory of God! That’s the Holy Spirit working.

Another example is someone listens to a beautiful homily (or sermon) and is touched by it, which triggers a conversion (or repentance) that brings him closer to God. That’s the Holy Spirit working.

 

[De_Maria]

Hello all,

I was hoping that I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut on a couple of versus that I would like to understand better. I have read Haydock’s commentary, St. Thomas’ and also Agape Bible Study. I’ve also done some Google research.

First one is John 3:8. - Trying to keep everything in context I’ve come to 2 guesstimates. First one is that what our Lord is telling Nicodemus is that Through Baptism the Spirit is invisible and we know not where it comes from or where it’s going but we can certainly feel His presence and see the effects of His divine work.

I don’t think Jesus meant through Baptism. But that the Spirit is always invisible and always blows where it will, as does the wind. For instance, we see in Scripture where the Spirit is the reason why a man would call Jesus, Lord:
1 Corinthians 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Yet these men, whom Christ condemns, call Jesus Lord:
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them,** I never knew you**: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, even though these men were committing iniquities, the Holy Spirit inspired them to call Jesus, “Lord”. Therefore, it would seem, the Holy Spirit blows where we least suspect.

The Second guess is that the Lord is also referring to the Holy Spirit working prior to Baptism in a supernatural way to Draw people to the Church. So in other words, we know not where the Spirit is going to do His work of convicting and drawing people to the true faith.

Yes. I agree with this one.

My main desire in this verse is to try to understand better the doctrine of regeneration and the economy of salvation. It is clear to me that the Church teaches that Baptism is the first order of regeneration,

What do you mean by “first order” of regeneration?

but of course there are those outside of the Church that don’t agree with that and espouse that people can be “born again” and or regenerated simply by the work of the Holy Spirit apart from the Church. …

I think if we look at real life, we will find examples of men who have changed their lives entirely, have repented of their sins and led exemplary lives, without the Catholic Church and without the Sacraments. Since good things only come from God, then I would venture that in some mysterious way, God has changed them.

Does that mean they are born again or regenerated? I don’t know.

One thing I know, the Church has recently admitted that the Jews have a valid religion. Even today. And I agree with that. And the Jews are neither baptized nor do they even claim to be born again. Yet the Church admits that they are being saved and if they live a virtuous life, will be saved.

So, what is the difference between those who are saved outside the Church and those inside the Catholic Church? Obviously, the Sacraments, which I believe give us access to the Heavenly Sion while still living on this earth:
Hebrews 12:22-24
King James Version (KJV)
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Everyone else has to await the Judgement before they can walk amongst the Saints.

and or that Baptism is just an “ordinance” or ceremony to demonstrate and confirm “outwardly” of the regenerative work already done “inwardly” by the Holy Spirit to an individual bringing them into saving faith “born again” apart from the sacraments and or outside of the Church.

See above.

My main focus here isn’t on a deep discussion about baptism and or John 3:5-7. My main focus is to better understand the meaning of John 3:8. Thanks.

I hope that helped.

Second verse is 1 Peter 3:21. Again involving baptism.

I’m having a hard time understanding what St. Peter means by “not washing away the filth or dirt from the flesh or body?” But rather baptism is a clear conscience.

In my opinion, he means that we are not Baptized in order to wash away dirt. But to cleanse our souls of sin.

The way that I’m thinking the meaning is here is that; baptism doesn’t do anything “outwardly” but is an “inward” work of the heart. So in other words, as a Catholic, we can’t just think that just as long as we are members of the Church and have been baptized, confirmed, married… etc… etc… and receive the Eucharist that we are going to be saved just by doing those things, … if we don’t have true faith and a true love in our hearts for Christ.

Again, not so much wanting and in-depth discussion on Baptism, just clarification on the verse.

Thanks.

Concerning this Petrine verse, you also said:

why would St. Peter make that analogy - because in infant baptism it is more like removing dirt from the body rather than a providing a clean conscience; unless, I’m guessing that when the infant turns into a youth and learns about it’s baptism, then at that point it effects the consience?

I don’t think St. Peter is here addressing infant Baptism at all.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[jcrichton]

The only thing that I’m still hung up on is that why would St. Peter make that analogy - because in infant baptism it is more like removing dirt from the body rather than a providing a clean conscience; unless, I’m guessing that when the infant turns into a youth and learns about it’s baptism, then at that point it effects the consience?

I was hoping to get someone to comment on John 3:8 if possible too.

Thanks.

…the problem with that premise is that it denies Adam’s legacy: Original Sin.

Baptism is not merely an outward symbol… it is what makes us part of Christ’s Body; but suggesting that infants gain nothing since they are not actively sinning or since they lack reason is to demote Baptism to a visual and empty symbol.

…as for St. John 3:8… Nicodemus is stuck in a temporal experience… he has difficulties understanding that Jesus has elevated Faith and Worship into a Spiritual realm (St. John 4:23-24) … so he fights the revelation as he attempts to view it with human understanding; Jesus offers a temporal example that could help Nicodemus breach the impass… as with the wind (blowing without constrains) human limitations cannot conceive God’s Spirit; Nicodemus must step up his human understanding in order to embrace God’s Will (1 Corinthians 2:1-16): those who are with the Spirit do not have the constrains of human will and understanding.

…hope this helps!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[InDefense]

Second verse is 1 Peter 3:21. Again involving baptism.

I’m having a hard time understanding what St. Peter means by “not washing away the filth or dirt from the flesh or body?” But rather baptism is a clear conscience.

The way that I’m thinking the meaning is here is that; baptism doesn’t do anything “outwardly” but is an “inward” work of the heart. So in other words, as a Catholic, we can’t just think that just as long as we are members of the Church and have been baptized, confirmed, married… etc… etc… and receive the Eucharist that we are going to be saved just by doing those things, … if we don’t have true faith and a true love in our hearts for Christ.

Again, not so much wanting and in-depth discussion on Baptism, just clarification on the verse.

Thanks.

Why would scripture even be concerned with something so banal as the dirt on our bodies ? In fact, the very act of getting baptised in water in full immersion would, would actually wash the physical dirt from our bodies !! Therefore, “the filth of the flesh” must be referring about something else. Is it referring to sin ? Consider the following scripture.

2 Corinthians 1:7 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Clearly, the “filthiness of the flesh” in 2 cor 1:7 is referring to sin ! Therefore, can we not conclude that 1 Peter 3:21 is saying that water baptism does not remove sin ?

 

[NotWorthy]

Why would scripture even be concerned with something so banal as the dirt on our bodies ? In fact, the very act of getting baptised in water in full immersion would, would actually wash the physical dirt from our bodies !! Therefore, “the filth of the flesh” must be referring about something else. Is it referring to sin ? Consider the following scripture.

2 Corinthians 1:7 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Clearly, the “filthiness of the flesh” in 2 cor 1:7 is referring to sin ! Therefore, can we not conclude that 1 Peter 3:21 is saying that water baptism does not remove sin ?

How can you say that? “filthiness of the flesh” has nothing to do with “removal of dirt from the body”.

To come up with this conclusion, you would have to completely ignore Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 - Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,*** every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins**; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit*."

Remember also, this completely echoes the prophecy of Ezekiel in chapter 36:25 -*** I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean; from all your impurities *and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

It is pretty evident that Peter is talking that baptism removes all our sins.

 

[jcrichton]

How can you say that? “filthiness of the flesh” has nothing to do with “removal of dirt from the body”.

To come up with this conclusion, you would have to completely ignore Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 - Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,*** every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins***; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit."

Remember also, this completely echoes the prophecy of Ezekiel in chapter 36:25 -*** I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean; from all your impurities ***and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

It is pretty evident that Peter is talking that baptism removes all our sins.

…I think that InDefense may have meant *we can not conclude *instead of “can we not conclude.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[NotWorthy]

…I think that InDefense may have meant *we can not conclude *instead of “can we not conclude.”

Maran atha!

Angel

But. But. Oh. Ahhhhhh… I understand… I think.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hello all,

I was hoping that I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut on a couple of versus that I would like to understand better.

I have read Haydock’s commentary, St. Thomas’ and also Agape Bible Study. I’ve also done some Google research.

First one is John 3:8. - Trying to keep everything in context I’ve come to 2 guesstimates. First one is that what our Lord is telling Nicodemus is that Through Baptism the Spirit is invisible …

Our Lord is clearly telling Nicodemus that he has made a partial mistake; and Jesus is doing it gently. “and the sound of-him YOU hear , BUT never …”
Recognize that Nicodemus came to Jesus, and stated his conclusion that Jesus MUST be from God (definitely Faith) therefore – Nicodemus, then, already has Faith; but is not born of “another”. Jesus says to him, “… you don’t know …” and likewise (IMO) others also born of the Sspirit (but notice, not water) don’t know either. That’s the point!

And, in John 3:9, Nicodemus proves Jesus right – at which point Jesus has to sting Nicodemus’ pride, pointing out that Nicodemus is a teacher of Israel and has failed to understand the scriptures point (ow!) of the old testament with respect to simple physical analogies. (I’m not offering to esplain )

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

The Second guess is that the Lord is also referring to the Holy Spirit working prior to Baptism in a supernatural way to Draw people to the Church. So in other words, we know not where the Spirit is going to do His work of convicting and drawing people to the true faith.

I agree that the Spirit has already been heard by Nicodemus who is NOT baptized by water, and therefore what you say is undeniably true. Nicodemus is being drawn to Jesus and the Church.

My main desire in this verse is to try to understand better the doctrine of regeneration and the economy of salvation. It is clear to me that the Church teaches that Baptism is the first order of regeneration, but of course there are those outside of the Church that don’t agree with that and espouse that people can be “born again” and or regenerated simply by the work of the Holy Spirit apart from the Church. … and or that Baptism is just an “ordinance” or ceremony…

I am reviewing a recording from Carm of Calvinist Matt Slick, (Pretty sharp character, his name unfortunately makes him sound a bit like a car saleman…!)
I would like to mention that Matt began to argue against water baptism’s effect by using the passage in Peter – eg: by stating that the flood of the time of Noah did not save the eight, but rather the Ark did. Therefore, he had a problem with the water as a physical part of baptism – and was trying to use the same passage in Peter that you will reference to show that very thing. This is a grave (pun intended) mistake.

My main focus here isn’t on a deep discussion about baptism and or John 3:5-7. My main focus is to better understand the meaning of John 3:8. Thanks.

OK, Hopefully I was shallow enough not to drown you there…

Second verse is 1 Peter 3:21. Again involving baptism.

I’m having a hard time understanding what St. Peter means by “not washing away the filth or dirt from the flesh or body?” But rather baptism is a clear conscience.

The way that I’m thinking the meaning is here is that; baptism doesn’t do anything “outwardly” but is an “inward” work of the heart. … snip…
Again, not so much wanting and in-depth discussion on Baptism, just clarification on the verse.

Thanks.

I don’t think it possible to have this part of the discussion without going deeper into the meaning, but as you don’t appear to be ready – I’ll instead give you the punch line, and let you think about it until you are ready to expose whatever issues lead you to this position. In the passage of St. Peter, it was not the 8 people who entered the ark who disobeyed. Rather it was all those, ignorant or not, babies or parents, who drowned in the water. Their flesh was not washed “clean” of dirt on the outside; their flesh ITSELF was stripped from them. Although one does not have to sin in order to receive a disease, or punishment, none the less – a disease in the body is itself a sin and punishment for sin.

We humans are not designed, from the beginning, to be creatures of disease or destruction. The Jewish understanding of “purity” and baptism was often extenal – washing the dirt OFF the body, etc. Clearly, the flood of Noah did something far more brutal.

Why would scripture even be concerned with something so banal as the dirt on our bodies ? In fact, the very act of getting baptised in water in full immersion would, would actually wash the physical dirt from our bodies !! Therefore, “the filth of the flesh” must be referring about something else. Is it referring to sin ? Consider the following scripture.

2 Corinthians 1:7 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Clearly, the “filthiness of the flesh” in 2 cor 1:7 is referring to sin ! Therefore, can we not conclude that 1 Peter 3:21 is saying that water baptism does not remove sin ?

It does, but does the water guarantee salvation by making one clean? That, I think is more pertinent question for, a man which is merely clean – as Jesus makes clear – is also empty and therefore can be possessed by up to ‘7’ (all/complete/permanent) demons. Baptism “opens” up the space of the spirit IMO – and from then on, there is going to be a war about who gets to occupy the space. If it is “abandoned”, eventually, the devil will find a way in… like a disease.

 

[jcrichton]

But. But. Oh. Ahhhhhh… I understand… I think.

Clearly, the “filthiness of the flesh” in 2 cor 1:7 is referring to sin !

…either that or the whole of the post is a contradiction since the above statement demonstate that sin is expressed as filth…

Maran atha!

Angel