Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[Cathoholic]

God binds Himself to His creation immediately in Genesis with the “Spirit hovering over the water” (Genesis 1:2).

• A water and Spirit theme.

---

In the times of Noah, there is an implicit Spirit and an explicit water theme that St. Peter correlates with Baptism (in 1st Peter 3).

• A water and Spirit theme.

---

In the times of Moses there is an explicit water and Spirit theme (as the Shekinah glory cloud or the “Spirit” leads the Israelites through the real water of the Red Sea to deliverance from their enemy. St Paul sees a Baptismal theme (1st Corinthians 10) in all of this.

• A water and Spirit theme.

---

Also at the time of Moses, the Rock that was Christ in the wilderness gave real (not figurative) water. St Paul sees a Baptismal theme in this too (again 1st Corinthians 10).

• A water and Spirit theme.

---

Prophecies of what is to come in the New Covenant . . . .

EZEKIEL 36:25-28 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26* A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27* And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. 28 You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

• A water and Spirit theme.

---

Then you go and quote several more Old Testament passages with a water and Spirit theme and conclude . . . .

. . . . you erroneously conclude because these are water and Spirit themes that they are not REALLY water and Spirit themes.

You erroneously conclude that the “water” prophetically is ONLY “figurative”.

You assert the water is prophetically “figurative” when the verses never say that.

A water and Spirit theme (like in Isaiah 44:3), that you deny part of thetazlord.

---

When John the Baptist Baptized with real actual water (not figurative) for repentance, the Levites and Temple Levitical Priests and the Pharisees that sent them, all knew the “water” wasn’t entirely figurative (there is a figurative dimension AND a real dimension).

They knew that real water was prophetically significant.

(Just like John the Baptist and historical Christians know the Old Testament “water and Spirit” themes are significant—Real Water.)

So when the Pharisees and the Levites and the Temple Levitical Priests see St. John the Baptist baptizing with real (not figurative) water, they correctly see the heralding of the Messiah.

They just didn’t know John’s Baptism was merely a herald to something bigger and better—Christian Baptism.

The Pharisees and the Levites and the Temple Levitical Priests all KNEW REAL water (not merely “figurative thetazlord water”) would be involved.

And they knew it from verses like Isaiah 44:3 thetazlord (and many others).

And when these guys come to him, John the Baptist doesn’t say: “Well this real water that you are talking about is meaningless.”

John the Baptist uses this real water to point to Jesus (why do you think that is?).
(Hint: It is to fulfill the Old Covenant prophecies thetazlord, that St. John the Baptist is inspired to do this)

JOHN 1:19-20, 24-28 19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” . . . 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, **if you **are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” 26 John answered them, “I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

When we are being Baptized, Jesus is the one doing the Baptism thetazlord. You don’t see that. You don’t believe that. I do. There is a figurative dimension (which you affirm) and a REAL dimension (which you deny).

That’s WHY St. John the Baptist never corrected the people approaching him on this issue (because John knew it too).

When we are being Baptized, Jesus is the one doing the Baptism of Spirit while we do the Baptism of the water. And THAT is WHY the Old Testament (like Isaiah 44:3) uses water and Spirit themes the way that it does.

That is WHY . . . . Right after the discussion Jesus has with Nicodemus about water and the Spirit . . . . . what do Jesus and His disciples immediately do? (and maybe even Nicodemus who may have “remained with them”)

They go out into the countryside and BAPTIZE!

JOHN 3:22 22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

“this” in John 3:22, is the discussion of Jesus with Nicodemus thetazlord.

After Jesus discussion with Nicodemus about the need to be born of water and the Spirit, Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

Immediately after telling Nicodemus humanity must be born of water and the Spirit, they go out to the land of Judea, and there they Baptize!

The fulfillment of what Jesus just told Nicodemus begins.

The fulfillment of the Old Testament water and the Spirit prophesies begins.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, I haven’t stated what “I think” the water refers to. Rather, I’m asking a question about “how” an unbaptized person can enter Heaven, based on the EXCLUSIVE words of our Savior in John 3:5,7.

Here is an exception to the requirement of water baptism: the baptism of blood.

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew:

Matthew 10:32
“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven”

and:

Matthew 10:39
“He that shall lose his life for me shall find it.”

It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine :

“He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John)

This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins.

The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Rather JESUS “decided” they MUST be exclusive, which is supported by the Greek. That’s the problem that believing the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the “required” water you “MUST” be baptized in, or you “cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Linguistically & Biblically, you can’t have it both ways without contracting one belief or the other.

Under normal circumstances, this is true; we must be baptized.

However, notice the following exchange:

Thief: Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

Jesus: Sorry, you should have thought of that earlier.

Jesus’ willingness to admit the penitent thief into paradise that very day is proof that Jesus was not saying that every single man, woman and child who enter heaven MUST have been baptized. There are exceptions.

Now, as a former Catholic, I’m sure you’re familiar with the following, but I’m posting it anyway:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Catch that last line in red? Those who desire salvation but do not know explicitly that water baptism is required have an implicit desire for the sacrament.

Water is normatively required. It is not absolutely required.

 

[thetazlord]

No, you decided they must be exclusive. You are being exclusive, while He was not. We know this because the whole context of Scripture and Tradition, both His expressions to the Church that He established, speak otherwise.

No, Jesus was speaking exclusive, because the Greek words written in those passages in John 3 were exclusive. In Greek, “must” means “required,” not “normative.” The reason we disagree on this issue has nothing to do with what you just wrote. It has to do with you rejecting the Greek definitions of “must,” “unless,” & “cannot” in John 3:5,7for the sake of your traditon. No other reason.

And because He said many things to His Church, which you refuse to heed, not all of which were recorded, because He never even intended His bible to be a clear and exhaustive catechism that anyone from any perspective could pick up, read, and discern the whole gospel truth from.

So, God intended the Bible to be confusing. That’s what you’re saying. God is a confusing God. Then why did He give us His written Word if He didn’t intend us to understand it. That makes not sense. And although the Gospel of John states that Jesus did & say things that aren’t recorded in His Gospel, it doesn’t say that these things were things we were meant to form doctrine from. And even “if” they were, those things wouldn’t change the fact that Jesus is still using exclusive language in John 3:5,7 (“must,” “unless,” “cannot”). So the second half of your post is irrelevant.

 

[thetazlord]

The reason why your “must” and “exclusive” objections to John 3:5 don’t work thetazlord is because of the different senses.

The “must” command (and it IS a command) is for Nicodemus (mankind).

That’s because you are “assuming” that the “water” refers to water baptism. If it did, then it could be interpretated that Jesus is giving Nicodemus a command. However, if you begin reading from John 3:2 onward, it’s clear that Jesus is speaking about the work of the Spirit - particularly in v.5, 6, & particularly v.8:

“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nothing in these verses make an illusion to the willful work of water baptism to “enter the kingdom of God.” Rather, Jesus is continually referring to the work of the Spirit, not water baptism.

Then you change the premise and try to posit the “must” is given to Jesus Himself.

No, that’s not what I said. I said that when God/Jesus makes a statement, such as the reply to the questions Nicodemus asked Him (“How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”), Jesus - being God - can’t make “exceptions” to exclusive statements/replies that He makes. Otherwise, He’d be contradicting Himself which is impossible, since Jesus is God. So, I didn’t “posit the ‘must’ is given to Jesus Himself,” but merely pointing out that Jesus can’t make a definitive, exclusive statement/reply to someone & then make “exceptions.” We can, because we are sinful human beings & can change our minds. God/Jesus can’t.

That is why every time you keep remanufacturing the same argument, you end up remanufacturing the same fallacy. The fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy where during your first question, it focuses on Nicodemus, then your follow-up question you throw Jesus into the same mix.

No, actually you are the making the equivocation fallacy, not me:

There is water in baptism.
John 3:5 uses the word “water.”
Therefore, the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism.

Sorry, but there is NOTHING in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus that even alludes to water baptism, let alone the fact that Jesus NEVER brings up baptism with him. So, you are one (falsely) equivocating “water” with “baptism” in John 3:5, due to your preconceived religous mindset. And because of that you can’t see past “baptism” when you read “water” in John 3:5, which has nothing to do with the text, nor the OT.

 

[thetazlord]

No one is “saved” until she dies. For salvation means being present with God in the Beatific Vision.

No, actually Scripture explicitly states that “if you call upon the Name of the Lord, you will be saved.” The Greek word for “call” in this passage means a response to a “call” from God. God is the One initiates a “call” to His elect, who then responds to that “call.” And at that moment they are saved. Justification is not a process but a moment (Romans 5:1).

However, the Scriptures speak of salvation as a process. So we Catholics follow what Scripture records and profess that we were saved at our baptism, we continue to be saved and then we hope to be saved.

See Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5-8, 1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12, and Rom. 5:9-10, 1 Cor. 3:12-15.

You’re confusing sanctification (which is a life-long process of striving to live in the image of God, which is fulfilled at death when we are glorified) with justification which occurs at a specific moment in time. The two are not the same thing.

I hope it doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy, taz.

When you reject the Church, you reject He who founded the Church.

I’m not rejecting the Church Christ founded. I’m rejecting a religious salvific belief that isn’t supported by the context of passages, such as John 3:5, which creates theological & Scriptural contradictions - something Christ can’t (& wouldn’t) do.

However, if you leave and reject Him and His Body, we do not hold you kicking and screaming to His Body. We say, as does Christ, do it your way.

You won’t have to worry about that, because although I reject that salvific means of water baptismal regeneration at my birth. I have repented of my sin against God, accepted Jesus not only as my Savior but also as my Lord (“Master”), & have willfully given my life over to Him as His humble, faithful, devoted slave, striving for His will to be done & not mind, based on His Authority in Scripture. And you believe that by doing this, I’m rejecting Him & His Body (the Church)???

 

[fhansen]

No, Jesus was speaking exclusive, because the Greek words written in those passages in John 3 were exclusive. In Greek, “must” means “required,” not “normative.” The reason we disagree on this issue has nothing to do with what you just wrote. It has to do with you rejecting the Greek definitions of “must,” “unless,” & “cannot” in John 3:5,7for the sake of your traditon. No other reason.

So, God intended the Bible to be confusing. That’s what you’re saying. God is a confusing God. Then why did He give us His written Word if He didn’t intend us to understand it. That makes not sense. And although the Gospel of John states that Jesus did & say things that aren’t recorded in His Gospel, it doesn’t say that these things were things we were meant to form doctrine from. And even “if” they were, those things wouldn’t change the fact that Jesus is still using exclusive language in John 3:5,7 (“must,” “unless,” “cannot”). So the second half of your post is irrelevant.

You completely presume that God meant for Scripture to be easily interpreted/understood by anyone who comes along and reads it. But that simply isn’t the case. Maybe He should apologize to you but I’ll submit that the bible wasn’t even available to the average man until the printing press was invented and even then the average guy couldn’t read anyway! And supremely erudite scholars in all the various fields of theology often disagree on the meaning of verses or the overall meaning of the bible based on scripture alone anyway and yet you come along sweating over the details of a single verse when the answer was already known centuries ago by the Church that God established because that-knowing the full gospel truth and proclaiming it-was the mission she was given in the beginning!

 

[thetazlord]

All of the above also applies to John 6:52. UNLESS is part of the text there.

That makes John 6:52 a very big problem for you, in the context of your paradigm. How is it that God makes an exception for little babies and the mentally challenged if we apply your fundamentalist approach to reading the Bible?

I’ve explained this numerous times. Because John 6:53 has nothing to do with physically “eating” Jesus literal “body,” & physically “drinking” Jesus’ literal “blood,” anymore than John 3:5 has anything to do with water baptism. That’s why these passages aren’t a problem for babies, because John 3:5 has to do with the Holy Spirit Himself “pouring” Himself out on people so they can “enter the kingdom of God” - something that would apply to babies too, since the Holy Spirit is doing to work, not them. However, unlike John 3:5, in John 6:53 Jesus’ statement is given with active verbs. In John 3:5, Jesus is saying unless one “is born…” but in John 6:53, Jesus is saying unless you “eat” & “drink.” That’s the difference. In John 6:53, Jesus is explaining what the condition of the individual’s desire, rather than the work of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, if you believe the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then ALL unbaptized babies would never even have the “hope” of salvation like it says on Vatican.va:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Likewise, if you believe that Jesus is speaking about literally “eating” His literal flesh & “drinking” His literal blood, then that would mean that even baptized babies would “not have eternal life,” because they didn’t “eat” & “drink” Jesus.

So, to summarize, John 3:5 refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit that applies to ALL the hearts of those the Holy Spirit regenerates, while John 6:53 applies more specifically to those who have the ability to choose to “come to” & “believe” in Jesus to have their spiritual “hunger” satisfied & “thirst” quenched (John 6:35).

 

[thetazlord]

No. I have never said that unbaptized people can enter the kingdom of God without being baptized in water.

We can hope for their salvation. But if you’re not baptized, you cannot enter into heaven…unless God wills it.

If unbaptized people cannot enter the kingdom of God without being baptized in water, then that means if a person isn’t baptized in water, they can’t get into Heaven, whether it’s God’s will or not, since Jesus is the One Who you believe is saying that a person can’t get into Heaven without being baptized in water (John 3:5). God can’t “override” what Jesus said “if” He’s referring to water baptism in John 3:5.

I realize you believe that Jesus is specifically talking about the responsibility of the individual to be baptized in John 3:5. But the text doesn’t support that, since the Greek in that passages isn’t talking about the responsibility of the individual, but the work of the Holy Spirit.

That’s why the Church has declared thousands (probably) of folks to be in heaven without the sacrament of Baptism.

As a former Catholic, I know what the Church has declared. But we’re talking about the implications of the interpretation of John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism, & how that interpretation affects unbaptized individuals. If it refers to water baptism, then ALL unbaptized people would end up in Hell, not Heaven. So, based on that interpretation being correct, the Church wouldn’t be able to declare them into Heaven, because they weren’t baptized in water.

 

[thetazlord]

Indeed.

I find that when people can’t answer questions, they like to resort to a rather thinly veiled dismissal: “This is off topic!”

But, peculiarly, they always reserve for themselves the right to go “off topic” at their own discretion.

Curious, that.

No, it’s because it violate forum rules. If either one of you want to talk about a different topic, begin another thread.

 

[thetazlord]

Do you see the danger you are actually acknowledging? See what I bolded in your response.

You are at a buffet filled with sumptuous foods, and all you are doing is taking a portion–a grape–and saying, “This is all I need to be fed!”

Why not feast at the buffet in its entirety?

Because as a slave a Christ - a Christian - I trust in the “finished” work of Christ’s shed blood on the cross for me. And as His slave, I submit my life to His will, which includes denying that there is any “work” on my part that can in anyway “merit” salvation - even in a “cooperational” sense - “with” God, such as in water baptism or eating a communion wafer or drinking communion wine, thinking that “unless” I participates in these things, that I “cannot” enter the kingdom of God, & not have “eternal life in me.” There is ONE Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), & ONE salvation plan - grace through faith & NOT of “myself” (Ephesians 2:8-9). When Jesus said “it is finished!” He meant it.

 

[thetazlord]

There is no one**** salvation plan. That would mean all we need is John 3:5 and the rest of the Bible can be discarded.

Now, as a caveat: if by “salvation plan” we mean: ** the plan of redemption by which Christ atoned for our sins by his passion, death and resurrection, then, yes, we are agreed that there is only “one” salvation plan**.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean I what I’ve been saying. I don’t know what you are talking about. And, BTW, you just “flipped” from saying there is “no one salvation plan” to “yes, we are agreed there is ONLY one salvation plan.” So, which is it?

But as the passion, death and resurrection was not mentioned at all by taz, we cannot accede that he was referencing this. He was referring to “things we must do to be saved” when he talks about “salvation plan”.

Those first three things are mentioned by Jesus - not me, nor did I ever claim to. I mentioned those are things I agree with, because they are solidly supported by Scripture as the “one” salvation plan of Jesus. The “work” of water baptismal salvation on our part “working together” with the Holy Spirit conflicts with the “finished” work of Jesus’ salvation plan on the cross for us.

As such, there are a MULTITUDE of “things we must do to be saved”. See here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12628168&postcount=286

Not just ONE.

Not according to God-breathed Scripture:

“Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13).

 

[thetazlord]

Here is an exception to the requirement of water baptism: the baptism of blood.

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew:

Matthew 10:32
“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven”

and:

Matthew 10:39
“He that shall lose his life for me shall find it.”

It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine :

“He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John)

This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins.

The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults.

The issue of baptism of blood (martyrdom) has been exhaustive covered. As mentioned in the OP, “if” an unbaptized person who is marytred “can” enter the kingdom of God, then that would contradict the interpretation of “water” in John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism, which would state “unless one is born of water (baptized in water) & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.” Scripturally & logically, a person can’t embrace both beliefs, because baptism of blood contradicts the interpretation of Jesus’ words in John 3:5. So either the interpretation of Jesus’ words are wrong, or baptism of blood is…but not both.

 

[Abu]

The reality of so many thousands of Protestant sects all teaching something different and disregarding the fact that Christ founded only one Church on St Peter and His Apostles, and whose Church gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, is ample proof of the fact that here is yet another person solely concerned with going his own way, regardless.

The significance is that once again no reverence has been paid to the reality that Christ founded His Church on St Peter, wrote nothing, and whose sole Church gave the world the defined Sacred Scripture as an integral part of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, all jettisoned for a personal whim.

No wonder there is no support for his misconception.

 

[thetazlord]

Under** normal circumstances, this is true; we must be baptized.**

But Jesus isn’t speaking “normatively” in John 3:5,7, but “exclusively,” because in Greek, “must” means “required” - not “normative.” Therefore, “if” the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then in John 3:5,7, Jesus is saying that a person would be “required” (“must”) to be baptized in water to enter the kingdom of God. That would disqualify unbaptized martyrs. To “allow” them into Heaven would contradict the “exclusive” words of Jesus in John 3:5,7.

However, notice the following exchange:

Thief: Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

Jesus: Sorry, you should have thought of that earlier.

Jesus’ willingness to admit the penitent thief into paradise that very day is proof that Jesus was not saying that every single man, woman and child who enter heaven MUST have been baptized. There are exceptions.

That’s because water baptism isn’t a “means” of salvation - that’s why John 3:5 isn’t referring to it. Otherwise, Jesus would have lied to the thief on the cross by promising him Paradise (Heaven). Jesus allowed him in, because his “calling out” to Jesus to be saved was a result of the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit - something that didn’t happen to the other unrepentant thief.

Now, as a former Catholic, I’m sure you’re familiar with the following, but I’m posting it anyway:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Catch that last line in red? Those who desire salvation but do not know explicitly that water baptism is required have an implicit desire for the sacrament.

Those who are “invincibly ignorant” would have the same problem with those who are baptized by desire & of blood, because they weren’t baptized in water, based on the exclusive words & interpretation in John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism as the ONLY way to enter Heaven.

Water is normatively required. It is not absolutely required.

It’s neither required nor normative, because water baptism isn’t a “means” of salvation, not even in John 3:5 - which refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism.

 

[thetazlord]

The reality of so many thousands of Protestant sects all teaching something different and disregarding the fact that Christ founded only one Church on St Peter and His Apostles, and whose Church gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, is ample proof of the fact that here is yet another person solely concerned with going his own way, regardless.

The significance is that once again no reverence has been paid to the reality that Christ founded His Church on St Peter, wrote nothing, and whose sole Church gave the world the defined Sacred Scripture as an integral part of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, all jettisoned for a personal whim.

No wonder there is no support for his misconception.

Yet, this comment doesn’t address the OP.

 

[thetazlord]

The reality of so many thousands of Protestant sects all teaching something different and disregarding the fact that Christ founded only one Church on St Peter and His Apostles, and whose Church gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, is ample proof of the fact that here is yet another person solely concerned with going his own way, regardless.

The significance is that once again no reverence has been paid to the reality that Christ founded His Church on St Peter, wrote nothing, and whose sole Church gave the world the defined Sacred Scripture as an integral part of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, all jettisoned for a personal whim.

No wonder there is no support for his misconception.

Yet this has nothing to do with the OP. Saying that a particular understanding of Scripture is somehow “wrong” because it “disregards” another church’s interpretation of it doesn’t equate to it automatically being incorrect. That kind of “non-answer” is just circular reasoning. That is why I used Scripture - not “my interpretation” - to point out the Scriptural contradictions cause by “assuming” eisegetically that the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. However, since the “water” must refer to something, & if Scripture can explain “what” it means, then that explanation shouldn’t cause these same contradictions that the interpretation that refers to baptism does. And the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit - which is supported by Isaiah 44:3-5 & other OLD Testament passages (which, based on John 3:10) is where you would have to look to find the meaning of “water & the Spirit,” which the OT does not teach water baptismal salvation to “enter the kingdom of God” - does not cause these same Scriptural contradictions that the interpretation of water baptism does.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord:

That’s because you are “assuming” that the “water” refers to water baptism. If it did, then it could be interpretated that Jesus is giving Nicodemus a command. However, if you begin reading from John 3:2 onward, it’s clear that Jesus is speaking about the work of the Spirit - particularly in v.5, 6, & particularly v.8:

John 3 IS talking about “Spirit” thetazlord. Your problem isn’t in what you affirm.

Your issues are with what you DENY.

John 3 is also specifically talking about “water”. You won’t take Jesus at His word. I do.

Once you believe Jesus, then by your own admission above, you should see the “command” aspect.

“Water” doesn’t mean “water” to you. Thetazlord. If Jesus had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean (here)’?"

I already mentioned, right after this discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus and His disciples go out into Judea and BAPTIZE.

JOHN 3:1-2b, 5, 22 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus . . . . 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. . . . 22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

To you? Mere coincidence. “Water” doesn’t mean “water”.

To the “Zwickau prophets” (like Nicholas Storch, Thomas Dreschel and Markus Stübner) or the politician Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) in Germany, or “the Swiss Brethren” from 1525 (mainly Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and ex-Catholic Priest George Blaurock) in Switzerland during “Reformation” times, or other Anabaptist Reformation-era inventors?

“Water” doesn’t mean “water” to them either.

To 2000 years of Christian history? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.
To the 2000 year-old Catholic Church? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.
To me? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.
To the various Eastern Orthodox Churches? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.

Listen to St. Irenaeus who personally as a youth, used to listen directly to St. Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the Beloved Disciple, St. John the Evangelist.

SAINT IRENAEUS “ ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”

• Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190), in ANF, I:574

---

I think you are closer to affirming Jesus’ real actual words than you admit to yourself thetazlord (but that may be just my conjecture). I’ll be cheering for you thetazlord (and praying for you too).

Once you see the command of Jesus to mankind, then being born of water and the Spirit is going to be do-able for you thetazlord. (I know you were Baptized in the Church, but I want everyone to know and share the fullness of truth too).

Also, once you see the command of Jesus as being to mankind, you will ALSO readily see that Jesus isn’t bound by His commands to mankind of this nature.

Jesus really means “water” AND the Spirit— Jesus really means just what He says.

Your original question in post 1 was:

My question is if these people can get into Heaven without being baptized in water, then wouldn’t that contradict the belief that the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism?

The answer is “No!” NO contradiction.

As you have showed, in order for you to deny this, you must deny Jesus means “water” when He says “water”.

Your question has been answered thetazlord.

 

[thetazlord]

You completely presume that God meant for Scripture to be easily interpreted/understood by anyone who comes along and reads it. But that simply isn’t the case. Maybe He should apologize to you but I’ll submit that the bible wasn’t even available to the average man until the printing press was invented and even then the average guy couldn’t read anyway! And supremely erudite scholars in all the various fields of theology often disagree on the meaning of verses or the overall meaning of the bible based on scripture alone anyway and yet you come along sweating over the details of a single verse when the answer was already known centuries ago by the Church that God established because that-knowing the full gospel truth and proclaiming it-was the mission she was given in the beginning!

Well, I trust the words in God-breathed Scripture when Peter states the Holy Spirit guides men in proclaiming the prophecy, rather than one’s own interpretation - whether that interpretation is that of an individual or a religious organization. IOW, Peter states we can “know” what Scripture states, & even John states that we can “assured” of our salvation based on what’s written. I find it interesting that some Catholics on this forum state that God’s Word is “unclear,” yet others believe that they know exactly what it means. BTW, your understanding of the understanding of Scripture in Church history is incorrect. Although in the LATER Church, many were illiterate, in the EARLY Church, Paul’s epistles were circulated & read, & even recognized by Peter as Inspired Scripture (2 Peter 3:16-17). The EARLY Church would have understood what they heard, because just like the OT, they compared what was taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). And water baptismal salvation wasn’t something that the Church “universally” agreed on “for centuries.” The 2nd through 4th Century Catholic church - including the ECF’s - weren’t “universal” in their “belief” in water baptismal salvation. This “universality” didn’t occur until later. And this “single verse” is no less God-breathed Scripture than the rest of the Bible. So, if an interpretation of even a “single” verse contradicts other “beliefs” taught, then either the interpretation is wrong, or those beliefs (like baptism by desire, of blood, etc) are wrong. But they both can’t be right, because they contradict each other.

 

[thetazlord]

thetazlord:

John 3 IS talking about “Spirit” thetazlord. Your problem isn’t in what you affirm.

John 3 is also specifically talking about “water”. You won’t take Jesus at His word. I do.

Then if John 3 is talking about the (Holy) Spirit and talking about water (baptism), then we’re back to the OP. If the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then “how” do UNbaptized people enter the kingdom of God, since Jesus uses EXCLUSIVE wording, such as “must” which in Greek means “required,” not “normative”? You are not seeing that this causes a Scriptural contradiction by allowing UNbaptized people into Heaven, because that would contradict your “belief” in baptismal salvation.

I already mentioned, right after this discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus and His disciples go out into Judea and BAPTIZE.

That’s right, AFTER! What Jesus & His disciples did AFTER He left Nicodemus has no bearing on His conversation DURING His conversation with him. What He did AFTER, is a completely different event. You are making an assumption that just because He baptized AFTER, that that somehow means the “water” refers to water baptism. That is an assumption based on NOTHING DURING His conversation with Nicodemus, nothing more.

To the “Zwickau prophets” (like Nicholas Storch, Thomas Dreschel and Markus Stübner) or the politician Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) in Germany, or “the Swiss Brethren” from 1525 (mainly Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and ex-Catholic Priest George Blaurock) in Switzerland during “Reformation” times, or other Anabaptist Reformation-era inventors?

No, because we’re talking about Scripture, not the “opinions” of people who lived hundreds of years later. Let’s stay on topic.

To 2000 years of Christian history? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.
To the 2000 year-old Catholic Church? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.
To me? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.
To the various Eastern Orthodox Churches? A fulfillment of just what Jesus said about water and the Spirit.

See above. And the Church has not “universally” believed the “water” referred to water baptism in John 3:5. You can find several ECF’s that didn’t believe that in EARLY Church history.

Listen to St. Irenaeus who personally as a youth, used to listen directly to St. Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the Beloved Disciple, St. John the Evangelist.

Again, not Inspired Scripture.

I think you are closer to affirming Jesus’ real actual words than you admit to yourself thetazlord (but that may be just my conjecture).

No offense, but that’s all it is.

Jesus really means “water” AND the Spirit— Jesus really means just what He says.

Then if that’s what He meant, then unbaptized people go to Hell. So, how do unbaptized people enter Heaven, like baptized by desire, if “water” means “water”?

The answer is “No!” NO contradiction.

Yes, it is. You just can’t recognize it.

Your question has been answered thetazlord.

It’s been answered, but the answerer doesn’t realize the Scriptural contradiction it causes.