C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I was looking through the famous work by Calvin called the “Institutes of the Christian Religion”. Here is an interesting passage I found on Chapter 16 paragraph 25:25. Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Saviour’s words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, “Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the word water is used. Nicodemus, after our Saviour had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Saviour intimates the mode in which God regenerates us—viz. by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers, operates in the manner of water. By “water and the Spirit,” therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the third chapter of Matthew, “He that cometh after me is mightier than I;” “he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Mt. 3:11). Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning, because our Saviour’s only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition.
Notice how this passage is concerned with John3:5. Here is what the Catholic Church said about this passage in the Council of Trent (Session 7 “On Baptism” Canon2): CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost[jn3:5];
let him be anathema.
I find it interesting when people accuse the Catholic Church of doing this or that “infallibly” and that only the Bible holds that power, when I turn around I find the same talk in famous Reformers work.
How do you explain this?
Next I want people to take a look at the CONTEXT of John 3:5-
First lets back up to Chapter 1 where this is the VERY FIRST thing that Jesus does before starting off to preach: 28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
Now go to Chapter 3 where Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit”, if you keep reading right AFTER Jesus gets done talking it says this:
22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. 23 John also was baptizing at Ae’non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came **and were baptized.
**Can it be any more clear that Calvin twisted the words of Jesus into “some metaphor” so that Baptism is meaningless? LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!
Notice how this passage is concerned with John3:5. Here is what the Catholic Church said about this passage in the Council of Trent (Session 7 “On Baptism” Canon2): CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost[jn3:5];
let him be anathema.
I find it interesting when people accuse the Catholic Church of doing this or that “infallibly” and that only the Bible holds that power, when I turn around I find the same talk in famous Reformers work.
How do you explain this?
Next I want people to take a look at the CONTEXT of John 3:5-
First lets back up to Chapter 1 where this is the VERY FIRST thing that Jesus does before starting off to preach: 28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
Now go to Chapter 3 where Jesus says “born of water and the Spirit”, if you keep reading right AFTER Jesus gets done talking it says this:
22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. 23 John also was baptizing at Ae’non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came **and were baptized.
**Can it be any more clear that Calvin twisted the words of Jesus into “some metaphor” so that Baptism is meaningless? LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!