Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[thetazlord]

Any insistence on the falsehood – that no one can be saved without water baptism – denies the reality and fidelity of Christ’s own Church, Her teaching and that of St Paul, given to us by Christ’s Catholic Church, who observed: “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles?” (Rom 3:29).

That (“no one can be saved without water baptism”) is the natural consequence of believing that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. Otherwise, those UNbaptized Gentiles would end up in Hell.

The great St Paul teaches the salvation of pagans who followed the law made known to them in their hearts, in Rom 2:14-16:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

This verse had to be understood in the context that the early Church was mostly Jewish. But by the time Paul wrote to the Church in Rome, more Gentiles started to become part of the Church. Paul is saying that just because someone wasn’t a Jew (the circumcized) doesn’t mean that when they did godly things, that God hadn’t written His Law on their hearts. But Paul is not talking about salvation. Plus, you still have the problem with the interpretation of “water” referring to water baptism in John 3:5 & the Scriptural contradictions created by it.

The great St Augustine emphasizes in his Epistle 102: “The salvation of this religion [Christ’s Church] through which alone true salvation is truly promised, was never lacking to anyone who was worthy, and he to whom it was lacking, was not worthy.”

With all due respect to Augustine, his writings are not Scripture. Therefore, they are not God-breathed, as evidenced by the fact that some of his writings contradict each other. This post is about John 3:5 & salvation.

All of the errors absorbed by those placing themselves above Christ and His Church arise through the failure to assent to His clear mandate to Her: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19). There is nothing more that God the Son, the Christ, did to make it crystal clear that His Church could not teach error or lead astray in doctrine or dogma,

Couldn’t agree more.

together with the installation of His Supreme Vicar, St Peter.

Sorry, this “belief” about Peter belongs on another thread. Although I have a lot of respect for Peter, & the pope is a nice guy.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord.

You quoted:

“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”

Now I will ask you “HOW did the Old Testament Saints” etc. who couldn’t hear Christ get saved?

YOU will have to say they were an “exception”. As a matter of fact you already preemptively asserted as such saying . . . “He’s referring to those who have the ability to believe”.

If YOU can insert an exception into John 3:5 with your invention (of excluding “water” despite the verse explicitly saying “water”), WHY do you object when the Catholic Church does the exact same thing concerning exceptions and being “born of water and the Spirit”?

I thought there were all those exclusivity clauses, underlined word, bolded words, and the Greek and all of that. Why not apply thetazlord exegetical rules to yourself?

---

You also cited Isaiah 44.

ISAIAH 44:3-5 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. 4 They shall spring up like grass amid waters, like willows by flowing streams. 5 This one will say, ‘I am the LORDs,’ another will call himself by the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘The LORDs,’ and surname himself by the name of Israel."

Isaiah 44:3-5 specifically says “water” thetazlord. And God IS doing the “pouring” in Baptism.

Far from doing away with Baptism, Isaiah 44:3-5 AFFIRMS “water” in Baptism.

This verse (and others) are part of the reason the ancient Jews of Jesus’ day, knew Baptism would be part of the heralding of the Messiah.

 

[thetazlord]

Since you have declared that baptism of water is defined as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then your statement on the “effectiveness” of the baptism of John the Baptist(JTB) is nonsensical.

It’s “non-sensical,” because I didn’t say “baptism of water is defined as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” I said being “born of water & the Spirit” is the same as the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” supported by OT passages, like Isaiah 44:3-5, & later reaffirmed by NT passages like Titus 3:5-7. But I never equated baptismal water with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I take it you mean effective for repentance but not for salvation, it actually means zero value. It is clear that those he baptized did not received the HS as mentioned in Acts. So those who died after their water baptism under John prior to them receiving the HS will NOT be saved by your interpretation.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. All those who were baptized under John for “baptism for repentance” were still saved, because they were still under the Law - which included being saved by the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” (Isaiah 44:3-5). But the waters of John’s baptism didn’t save them - repenting did (Matthew 3:2) - not the act of being baptized. They had faith in God to save them & were “credited righteousness” just as Abraham was who “also” wasn’t baptized in water, but trusted God & accepted His Holy Spirit.

So your word “effective” carries no meaning, no substance at all. You repent but not saved because the HS did not poured on to you?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. See above.

Then the conclusion from your theology of outpouring of the HS is that God chose a vehicle in JTB to deceive the people in promising that as long as they repent they will be saved, which in your view will not be since they did not receive the “outpouring” of the HS. All his baptisms are for nought?

Again, nope. Again, see above.

I don’t think anyone can accept this conclusion. If JTB only preached repentance but did not conduct water baptism, may be you might have a point. Since he conducted water baptism and continued to do so after he has baptized Jesus, and if he is ineffective salvation wise according to you, then this prophet of the Most High, has deceived the masses. But we know that can not be for some one filled with the HS and called the “greatest born of a woman”. Hence your theology is not inclusive of ALL scriptures and can not stand by itself. I can understand your reluctance to comment on JTB as this is your weak point.

Hopefully, by now, you realize your misunderstanding of what I actually said. Peace!

 

[Church_Militant]

I obeyed Christ by being baptized in water after I repented. But I reject the belief that when a person gets baptized in water, that they receive the Holy Spirit at that time so they can “enter the kingdom of God.” Based on that belief, am I a Christian? If not, then am I not part of the Church? If so, keep in mind that in Acts, if you part of the Church, you were called “the Way,” referring back to John 14:6 when Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, & the Life, NOONE comes to the Father except by ME.” If I believe that, have repented, but recheck the above, then how am I not part of “the Way,” “the Church,” or “not His”? If I’m not part of “the Way,” then does that mean that I need to perform the “work” of water baptism to “enter the kingdom of God”?

Nope…from what I understand of your history you were right and properly baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. Even as was the practice in the New Testament and the early church. (See The Case For Infant Baptism )

What the church was called is different than you have been misinformed. take note,
h men oun ekklhsia kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto

Every text in the Greek uses the same word for “church throughout all” that I have placed in red above. That says “ecclesia katholos” which can also be translated as Catholic Church.

First, Christ didn’t give a "command’ in John 3:5. Christ was answering Nicodemus’ question. He was making a statement, not giving a command, about the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, if Christ is referring to water baptism & it’s not “optional,” then those who are “not” baptized in water (baptized by desire, of blood) would not “enter the kingdom of God.” And as I said in the post, since Nicodemus was a “teacher of Israel” he would have taught from the OLD Testament - not the New. And the OLD Testament didn’t teach water baptism

to enter the kingdom of God - ie: Heaven. If not, then show me that OLD Testament verse that states that.Here you’re just splitting hairs while refusing to accept the context of the rest of New Testament scripture. The OT doesn’t have to support it because it’s pre-Christ. Either we obey Him or not, but your argument is just diversion and avoidance…sort of like throwing dust in the air.

No it’s not. It’s based on Isaiah 44:3-5 - not “my opinion” - that explains perfectly well exegetically that the “pouring of water” referring to the “pouring of the Spirit” mentioned by Isaiah refers to the “outpouring of water & the Spirit” in John 3:5, which is further supported by the “pouring out of the Holy Spirit” in Titus 3:5-7. Plus, it doesn’t cause the Scriptural contradiction that “water baptism” does in John 3:5. So, it does

have both OT & NT support.Just because you say it contradicts doesn’t make it a fact…as I’ve said before, you see this contradiction because you see to force an agenda driven (Pentecostal, if you will) misinterpretation onto the texts of scripture.

You gather cherry picked scriptures to attempt to support your case while conveniently dismissing and ignoring the bulk of authentic evidence in the context of the New Testament.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Paul isn’t saying that water baptism “saves” a person in this verse. If he did, then he’d be saying that a person can’t be saved UNLESS one is baptized in water, which brings us back the the OP about John 3:5. Understanding that in Acts 22:16 the Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated “calling on His name” refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, “be baptized.” Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated “having called on His name” which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events. And regarding Ananias, keep in mind that the order of events of when Paul received the Holy Spirit & when he was baptized is important. He received the Holy Spirit first

(Acts 9:17) & “then” he was baptized (v.18) - not simultaneously. Again, unlike today, when people believed, repented, & then received the Holy Spirit, they then immediately got baptized. Receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of water baptism was not a single event. The Holy Spirit came first, & then afterwards a person was baptized in water out of obedience to Christ, but not as a “condition” of "entering the kingdom of God."You have chosen to use the other account of these events, but I would say that one needs to marry both accounts since the one in Acts 22 is actually being recounted by St. Paul himself and so is more accurate. It’s minor, but very informative.and it doesn’t help your case at all.

 

[Church_Militant]

Then if water baptism is “necessary” for salvation, then that would mean that if a person is not baptized in the “necessary” baptismal water, then they’d go to Hell. If something isn’t “necessary” then it’s not “required,” which being “born again/born of water & the Spirit” is - “required”:

“You MUST (Greek: “required to”) be born again” (John 3:7)
“UNLESS one is born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)
“UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)

Since “born again” = “born of water & the Spirit,” John 3:7 could just as easily read:

“You MUST (Greek: “required to”) be born of water & the Spirit”

So, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then John 3:7 would be saying:

“You MUST (Greek: “required to”) be baptized in water.”

So, “if” water baptism is “necessary” or “required” to “enter the kingdom of God,” then ANYONE who is not baptized in water would not “enter the kingdom of God.” This would include “UNbaptized in water,” like those baptized by desire, of blood because they weren’t baptized in water.

Again, if water baptism is “necessary” that those baptized by desire, of blood, etc,would not “enter the kingdom of God” because they weren’t baptized in “necessary/required” water. And those other verses actually don’t support water baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, you’re back to issues raised above & in the OP.

I’m sure sorry that Almighty God doesn’t fit into your neat little box, but I think that if he did…He wouldn’t be the God that we see in the Bible.

According to you then a person who desires to be baptized and is martyred before it can happen is doomed?

And further…you assert that the plain sense of the word of God has some Gnostic like meaning which enables your Pentecostal interpretation that because someone speaks in tongues they are saved whether or not they have been obedient to Christ in coming to him in water Baptism in direct contravention of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ’'s command in Mark 16:15-16? That simply does not work…that only occurred once in the New Testament and even then it was for a sign to the apostles in question.

The Holy Spirit does guide men to the Truth (2 Peter 1:20-21), but not “all” men. But the way we can tell the difference is by coming what they believe TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), & whether or not their belief contradicts Scripture. And the Holy Spirit will help you to discern “who” He is guiding. Something we can’t do without Him.

Irrelevant to topic.

The problem is that their “tradition answers” based on “their” interpretation of those Bible passages don’t take into account the Scriptural contradictions that are created by “assuming” those “answers” are correct.

No, the problem is that modern new winds of doctrines of men have been let loose among you and so you force your interpretations onto the texts of scripture in order to make a case for your pet beliefs. Even when it flies in the face of scripture itself and 2,000 years of authentic Christian teaching from the time of the apostles to this day.

God bless you too! I actually LOVED my Catholic upbringing. Especially being an altar boy. Had a wonderful parish, great Catholic education, & loved the priests. Got along with all of them. But when I began to compare what I was taught to the Word of God, it was actually Scripture & the contradictions created by the “assumptions” about salvation (such as the ones listed above) that led me away from Catholicism. But I can assure you - I “am” at home in the Church. ]

Yeah? I thought that way too for many wasted years, but now I know that I was deceived away from authentic New Testament, “full gospel”, Christianity by well meaning people with Bibles. Hopefully you will too. (See My Testimony)

 

[Church_Militant]

BTW…if you’re interested. since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…

 

[thetazlord]

Nope…from what I understand of your history you were right and properly baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. Even as was the practice in the New Testament and the early church. (See The Case For Infant Baptism )

I’ve read that article. The problem is that unbaptized babies would still go to Hell, because they weren’t baptized in water. You don’t have that problem with the “water” in John 3:5 referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit.

What the church was called is different than you have been misinformed. take note,

 

[thetazlord]

Nope…from what I understand of your history you were right and properly baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church. Even as was the practice in the New Testament and the early church. (See The Case For Infant Baptism )

I wanted to comment more about your article on infant baptism. First, NOWHERE in the NT does it talk about baptizing infants. Even the references that you cited, including the “households” such as the Paul’s jailor’s family, if you actually read those passages as a whole, it states that ALL the members in those “households” believed. Same thing with the “household” of Stephanos in 1 Corinthians. ALL the members of his “household” were “devoted” to the Lord. Babies can’t “believe” nor be “devoted” to the Lord. Therefore, in “households” mentioned in the NT, there were no babies in “these” households.

And even regarding the testimony of Polycarp having “served eighty and six years have I served Him [Christ]”: First, that writing isn’t even Polycarp’s, but rather what someone wrote down what he allegedly said. Second, it’s not Inspired Scripture, so even whatever Polycarp said, or allegedly said, “if” it’s indirectly supporting infant baptism, it still needs to be compared TO Scripture, which doesn’t support infant baptism. Third, there’s nothing in that passage of Polycarp’s martyrdom that says anything about baptism, nor does he state he was baptized as a baby. Fourth, if the “eighty and six years” refers to his age, & it’s “assumed” that he “served” that long implies that he was baptized as a baby, that’s a HUGE assumption. Fifth, there is debate to how old Polycarp was when he died. There are other writings from ECF’s that state that the “eighty-six years” he served was from time he was converted at 18 years old to the time he was martyred (107), not 86. Unfortunately, since it’s not a Catholic source, I don’t want to break forum rules & post a non-catholic-supported site. You can imagine how frustrating this is for me, because this puts me at a HUGE disadvantage, since Catholics can post Catholics as well as non-catholic sites provided these non-catholic sites support Catholic beliefs. But I am only limited to posting Scripture verses and Catholic sites, & quotes from ECF’s - and even then, I have to be careful not to use them in a way that even “implies” I “might” be using them to discount Catholic beliefs. So, in order to obey forum rules, I don’t quote them. This is a Catholic forum after all, so to comply & be respectful, I have to accept these limitations, as you said “this is your back yard” (or however you worded it)

And as far as me not being a Christian based on your reply (“Nope”), then are you saying that even though I reject that when I was baptized in a water as a baby was sufficient for “entering the kingdom of God,” but I have genuinely repented of my sin against God, accepted Jesus not only as my Savior but also my Lord (ie: “Master”) over every aspect of my life as His slave, including obeying to be baptized after I repented & got saved, that I’ll still not “enter the kingdom of God” based on that single fact that I don’t “believe” that? If so, then that would mean that unbaptized babies would end up in Hell too, because they can’t “believe” that either. Same with the mentally challenged. But remember, what Jesus “actually” said was those who actively disbelieve in what Jesus did on the cross “for us” are condemned (Mark 16:16b; John 3:18), not disbelieving in water baptismal salvation. So, although a genuine believer will desire to be baptized out of “obedience” to Christ, Scripture doesn’t state that the “work” to willfully participate in water baptism is a means of salvation, but like other willful works, is the evidence that one’s faith is genuine (James 2:18), & not “dead” (v.17).

 

[thetazlord]

BTW…if you’re interested. since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…

This isn’t about sola scriptura, nor is the OP. Sola scriptura is the belief that any belief, tradition, etc that is not supported by the Word of God (added to or taken away) or contradicts it is not true. My use of Scripture isn’t about sola scriptura, but rather, since we both believe the Old and New Testament is the Inspired Word of God (just for different reasons) then whatever “born of water & Spirit” means, whatever Scripture supports it means, any other belief is not true, because it would conflict with the Word of God. And “born of water & Spirit” to refer to the waters of baptism conflicts with UNbaptized people “entering the kingdom of God,” because they weren’t baptized in water. So, either the “interpretation” of John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism is wrong, or the “beliefs” that the “exceptions” to water baptism (baptized by desire, of blood)is wrong. But they both can’t be right, because these “beliefs” contradict each other.

So, let’s not go off on a tangent about sola scriptura since creates a Red Herring unrelated to the OP. May we remain on topic?

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord repeating:

But they both can’t be right, because these “beliefs” contradict each other.

Cathoholic reaffirming:

They are used in differing senses. BOTH are true.

thetazlord is showing classic switching of premises. A classic Fallacy of Equivocation.

---

The Old Testament verses thetazlord refers to, actually support REAL water and the Spirit. They support REAL Baptism.

And all the Scripture Scholars of Jesus’ day knew that, as the Scriptures assert (but thetazlord denies).

 

[fhansen]

First, those verses from Peter states that water baptism is an “antitype” (which is what it means in Greek) which is an “earthly expression of a spiritual reality” or a “symbol” (as you put it) of some greater spiritual reality. See also Hebrews 9:24 where this same Greek word is used for “figures.” So, Peter isn’t saying the water baptism “saves” a person, but rather it’s an “antitype” or “symbol” or “figure” of what actually “saves” a person. Peter isn’t referring to water baptism as the “means” of salvation.

Second, even “if” that’s what Peter means, then Jesus would be saying in John 3:5 that water baptism is the ONLY means of salvation, not a “normative” means, since Jesus uses EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”). So, if that is true, then how can UNbaptized people, such as those baptized by desire, of blood, etc "enter the kingdom of God’ without being baptized in water?

The answer is that water baptism is not either/or: water or the Spirit, but both/and; water baptism performed as instructed in Scripture is always a spiritual matter, always a matter of grace where the Holy Spirit comes to make His home in us, a sacrament IOW.

 

[fhansen]

“Can” - meaning that a person IS able to understand, but that doesn’t mean everybody is either willing, or has the mental ability to. And it doesn’t change the fact that the book of Revelation does say that. But since this is about the meaning of John 3:5, not Revelation, let’s stick to one topic. Okay? I have also written out an explanation that many people have been asking me for.

Right-you bring up Revelation to support the idea that Scripture-God breathed and always crystal clear-must be heeded. Now you’d prefer to dismiss this line of reasoning altogether because you’d have to acknowledge that large parts of Revelation aren’t clear at all. Sincere, willing, experts in hermeneutics, biblical language scholars, et al, disagree on the meaning of Romans, let alone Revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

I obeyed Christ by being baptized in water after I repented.

This is very Catholic.

But I reject the belief that when a person gets baptized in water, that they receive the Holy Spirit at that time so they can “enter the kingdom of God.” Based on that belief, am I a Christian?

You are a Christian if you were baptized in water, using the Trinitarian formula. In fact, you are a Catholic (still), if you were baptized in a Catholic church during your infancy.

An indelible mark was placed on your soul at the moment of your baptism in infancy. The universe was changed forever at that moment, taz!

You were claimed by Christ for His Church…and His mark on you is eternal.

Baptized Catholic = claimed by Christ forever.

 

[ericc]

It’s “non-sensical,” because I didn’t say “baptism of water is defined as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” I said being “born of water & the Spirit” is the same as the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” supported by OT passages, like Isaiah 44:3-5, & later reaffirmed by NT passages like Titus 3:5-7. But I never equated baptismal water with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. All those who were baptized under John for “baptism for repentance” were still saved, because they were still under the Law - which included being saved by the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” (Isaiah 44:3-5). But the waters of John’s baptism didn’t save them - repenting did (Matthew 3:2) - not the act of being baptized. They had faith in God to save them & were “credited righteousness” just as Abraham was who “also” wasn’t baptized in water, but trusted God & accepted His Holy Spirit.

I disagree with your take.

a) JTB, the one ushering in the Messiah for the New Covenant did not participate in the benefits of the new Covenant but has to fall back on to the provisions of the Mosaic Law for salvation? That is a strange way to introduce a new product.

b) There is baptismal water only if there was repentance. Not the other way round. Why go and get wet in the Jordan if there was no repentance? Under Mosaic law, the Jews did not have to undergo water baptism. Repentance is enough for them to be reconciled with God. What you are saying is that JTB performed a needless act for a long time. The baptism of Jesus and countless others gotten wet is a needless act because all they have to do under the Law is to repent and seek forgiveness. So until the HS came upon them, they were saved by Mosaic Law and not by the New Covenant? And post HS, the new covenant applies? I hardly think this is credible. There is no such teaching in the Bible or by the Church or any early Christians. John never taught that. For Jesus there is no need for repentance but he underwent John’s water baptism to “fulfill all righteousness”. So there is something of value in water baptism in itself and is not an empty act. You are saying it is not the baptism but the repentance. But obviously, Jesus didn’t think so.

c) The Jews under the Mosaic Law did not believe in the Trinity concept. So they could not be held to be saved by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, an entity that none of them believe in. They wouldn’t read Isaiah 44:3-5 the way Christians do.

d) There was no mention by Abraham that he accepted the Holy Spirit. This is new to me. Chapter and verse? I think you will hardly find examples of pouring of the HS on the OT prophets for salvation the last time I did a search.

 

[PRmerger]

The answer is that water baptism is not either/or: water or the Spirit, but both/and; water baptism performed as instructed in Scripture is always a spiritual matter, always a matter of grace where the Holy Spirit comes to make His home in us, a sacrament IOW.

It’s amazing how many heresies are borne out of this either/or thinking. Either God OR man. Either Scripture OR tradition. Either science OR faith.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against–our Both/And paradigm trumps any kind of objection.

 

[PRmerger]

Because if I were to take it on what “you” are saying, then I’d be accepting a Scriptural contradiction, which is impossible, since the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, the interpretation must be incorrect. However, understanding “water & the Spirit” to refer to the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” which is supported by Scripture - Old & New Testament (Isaiah 44:3-5; Titus 3:5-7, does not cause this Scriptural contradiction, & is consistent with the rest of Scripture that salvation is the work of God from “above” - not a “work” performed on our part.

Well, this is the Catholic POV, taz. Baptism is indeed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.

2652 The Holy Spirit is the living water “welling up to eternal life” in the heart that prays. It is he who teaches us to accept it at its source: Christ. Indeed in the Christian life there are several wellsprings where Christ awaits us to enable us to drink of the Holy Spirit.

1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). The Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be “born of water and the Spirit.”

 

[PRmerger]

You have the same problem with this verse. By believing that Jesus is talking about eating His literal, physical flesh in the communion wafer, then - yes - Jesus would be saying that eating His literal, physical flesh would be the only means of “having eternal life,” because Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for “unless,” which means “except, or if not,” just as He does in John 3:5. So, now you have “two” conditions in order to enter Heaven - water baptism and eating communion. But since this thread is about John 3:5, not John 6:52, let’s stick to the subject & not cause a “split” in the discussion. If you wish to discuss John 5:52, I suggest you start a new thread.

And that makes you have the same problem, as well. How is it that babies go to heaven if they haven’t figuratively eaten his flesh and drunk his blood?

Remember, Jesus said “unless”. Very clear.

What is your pastor’s interpretation of this?

And please do not try to detract. This verse is a natural segue from our position that we take the Word of God in its entirety to assist us.

Talking about 1 verse in isolation and refusing to address all the others is like living your entire life eating only mashed turnips. You will die from a lack of nutrients.

It is an impoverished way to be fed on the Word of God.

So please address John 6:52. For it is part of John’s Gospel, is it not?

Please do not dismiss the Word of God.

 

[thetazlord]

thetazlord repeating:

Cathoholic reaffirming:

thetazlord is showing classic switching of premises. A classic Fallacy of Equivocation.

---

The Old Testament verses thetazlord refers to, actually support REAL water and the Spirit. They support REAL Baptism.

And all the Scripture Scholars of Jesus’ day knew that, as the Scriptures assert (but thetazlord denies).

And if 0% of the OT Scriptures says anything about water baptismal salvation. If not, then please provide ONE OT Scripture that talks about water baptism salvation - not ritual cleansing, but water baptismal salvation. If you can’t, then they don’t support “REAL Baptism.”

There is no Fallacy of Equivocation, because I have said all along that a person cannot see the kingdom of God unless they receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (aka: born of water & the Spirit), supported by OT verses (such as Isaiah 44:3-5) & affirmed by NT verses (such as Titus 3:5-7). And receiving the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit is something that happens to OT saints, NT saints, babies who die, as well the mentally challenged. The same can’t be said if the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, because unbaptized babies & unbaptized mentally challenged individuals who die would end up in Hell, since they would not be baptized in water. You are using eisegesis (what you “think” the ‘water’ means in John 3:5), rather than exegesis (what OT Scripture actually supports, which is backed up later in the NT). So, in reality, “you” are the one using the Equivocation Fallacy:

There is water involved in baptism.
The word “water” appears in John 3:5.
The water refers to the waters of baptism.

Sorry, but “you” are the one using this fallacy, not me.

 

[PRmerger]

And receiving the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit is something that happens to OT saints, NT saints, babies who die, as well the mentally challenged.

This is very Catholic.

However, can you provide the Scripture verse that you use to proclaim that the mentally challenged receive the outpouring of the HS?

Also, is it your pastor’s belief that the HS falls on everyone? A person needs to do NOTHING at all to receive this?