Question about John 3:5 & salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter thetazlord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It has everything to do with sola scriptura because the churches that don’t depend on scripture alone have no such difficulties in understanding the faith in regards to baptism or other doctrines; they don’t depend on private interpretation, sweating over the details of a single verse that was never intended to convey in perfect clarity what you insist it must. Scripture, by its own admission, can be unclear. But you assign to Scripture the role that God established His *Church *to play.
No, this doesn’t have to do with “sola scriptura.” Sola scriptura has to do with the belief that ONLY Scripture is where the Church should trust in its doctrines, and not to “add to nor take away from,” nor contradict Scripture. What this thread is about is that since we all believe that Scripture is God-breathed - OT & NT - then Scripture can’t be wrong. And since Scripture states “You must be born again,” just as you said “what you insist it must,” then both Scripture & you are saying “must” means “required.” And that’s what it means in the Greek - “required” not “normative.” I’m sorry that you find Scripture so “unclear,” but God never intended it to be unclear. Revelation Ch.1 even states that if you read the book of Revelation it gives a blessing to those who can “heed” it. And if you “heed” something, that means you can understand it. So, even Revelation - one of the more difficult books of the Bible to understand, “can” be understood. The same is with John 3:5, which states that “born of water & the Spirit” is the ONLY way to Heaven. So, “if” this is referring to water baptism, then “how” can UNbaptized people get into Heaven? The reason it’s “unclear” is because - Scripturally - it’s not referring to water baptism. But until I get permission from a moderator (which I’m still waiting for a response), I can’t post one, so I don’t receive an infraction for violating forum rules.
 
No, I was specifically taught in my Catechism that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. There was no “mis-remembering” of it.
Fair enough. Then the possibility still exists that you are misinterpreting what you were told, or that the teacher was in error.
I specifically remember that, because my former parish used that passage as “proof” for the “necessity” of water baptism.
And well might they! But, you’re conflating “that passage” with your personal assertion that this implies “water and Spirit” is only equivalent to “the waters of baptism.” I won’t disagree with you that baptism is necessary; only that the ‘water’ mentioned there is exclusively a reference to the ‘waters of baptism.’ 🤷
And you might want to rewatch that video on Cardinal Arinze, because he specifically reworded John 3:5 stating “you must be baptized of water & the Spirit or you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.” If you don’t believe me, go back & watch it yourself.
Yes, he did paraphrase it in that way. I don’t think it’s fair to say that he interprets it in the way that you assert that it’s being interpreted, though.
The reason that it’s an “exclusive” statement isn’t because Cardinal Arinze believes it’s exclusive, but because of the exclusive words JESUS uses (“unless,” “cannot,” “must”) in John 3:5,7.
And, as I demonstrated to you, the words ‘unless’, ‘cannot’, and ‘must’ do not appear in these verses, so your argument from the English translation has no force. Moreover, the words that Jesus uses speak to the effect of the rebirth, not the form of it.
I’m noticing that Catholics are having a really hard time grasping “why” these are exclusive passages. It’s really not that hard to understand if you read them.
And we have read them. 😉

Yet, the force of the passages and the commands within them speak to the effects of the rebirth.
Perhaps the whole “necessary” doesn’t mean “absolutely necessary,” but “normative” argument that I see made so frequently is preventing you from seeing this. But that argument is baseless, because in Greek these words (“unless,” “cannot,” & especially “must”) are exclusive words. In fact, “must” means “required,” not “normative.”
You’re missing the point. Let’s suppose I said that you must go to the Super Bowl. Would that imply that you must fly? Or drive? Or walk? No – just that you must go there. Same thing here: it is necessary to be born from above. That’s all.
I’m addressing that the text of John 3:5,7 states that being born of water & the Spirit is the ONLY way to enter Heaven.
The text of John 3:7 says no such thing.
So, my question is based on the text of John 3:5,7 based on the Greek, which I am yet to receive an answer.
That’s… interesting. Especially considering I’ve already written two responses to you in which I explicitly discuss the Greek text of John 3:5 and 3:7. 🤷
 
But until I get permission from a moderator (which I’m still waiting for a response), I can’t post one, so I don’t receive an infraction for violating forum rules.
What is it, exactly, that you “can’t post one” of?
 
Yes, I understand your question. I’ll see if I can find the excellent article about baptism of desire that I once read, which should answer your question, okay? What I can tell you now is that although baptism of desire and of blood are not sacramental, they still do produce the same EFFECT as sacramental baptism with water. God bless you.
Then if that’s true, then the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism is incorrect. See why?

“UNLESS one is born of water baptized in water] he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.”
“You MUST (Greek: “are required to”) be born again.”

Either baptism by desire & of blood is wrong, or the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism is wrong, because they contradict each other. Do you see “why” now?

Blessings to you as well. 🙂
 
I can also assure you that your question in Ask An Apologist will go unanswered because they are staff apologists and not mods or admins and so they don’t address such things. You can PM the mod for this forum, which is Michael Francis and expect a response since he’s on pretty regularly all through the day.

He’s been a mod here for a long time and handles this forum and Apologetics. 🙂
Thanks for the link to Michael. I’ll see if I can get a reply there. Thanks & God bless! 🙂
 
What is it, exactly, that you “can’t post one” of?
My understanding of what the “water” in John 3:5 refers to - Scripturally. Since my understanding of it conflicts with official Catholic doctrine that it refers to the waters of baptism, & want to comply with forum rules. So, I am patiently waiting to hear from a moderator.
 
You’re missing the point. Let’s suppose I said that you must go to the Super Bowl. Would that imply that you must fly? Or drive? Or walk? No – just that you must go there. Same thing here: it is necessary to be born from above. That’s all.
I’m afraid your missing my point. To use your example, if you say “I must go the Super Bowl,” then you are saying I’m “required” to go the SuperBowl. It’s irrelevant “how” I get there. The point you are making is that me going to the SuperBowl is a “must” - IOW, I’m “required” to go there. Likewise, when Jesus says “You must be born again” (John 3:7), Jesus is saying you are “required” to be born again. And as mentioned numerous times, “born again” is the same thing as “born of water & the Spirit” (John 3:3,5). Therefore, when John 3:7 says “You must be born again,” it’s the same as saying, “You must be born of water & the Spirit.” And the Greek word for “must” means “required,” not “normative.” Also, since the “water” is believed to refer to the waters of baptism, then John 3:5 could just as easily read:

“Unless one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” - just as Cardinal Arinze paraphrased it.

Therefore, since “born again” is the same thing as “born of water & the Spirit” then John 3:7 could just as easily read:

“You must be born of water & the Spirit”

or

“You must be baptized in water.”

And since “must” in Greek means “required,” that would mean Jesus is saying a person is “required” to be baptized in water, or he “cannot enter the kingdom of God.” That would be the result of understanding “water” to refer to the waters of baptism - again, the way the Catholic church understands the “water” to mean, as well as the way Cardinal Arinze
understands it.
The text of John 3:7 says no such thing.
See above.
That’s… interesting. Especially considering I’ve already written two responses to you in which I explicitly discuss the Greek text of John 3:5 and 3:7. 🤷
Hopefully, by now, you’ll understand what I’ve been attempting to get across. 🙂
 
Seriously? I provided the actual link, & even quoted some of the slanderous statements you made about me & my faith - word-for-word - and you still can’t see it? Here is the link again. Read over it SLOWLY, & “maybe” you might get it:
Yes !! Seriously!!!
Apart from this one line
"Purgatory Pete:
You have never actually answered questions to the satisfaction of any of us.
Script alone, show me where I refer to you personally as those things you accuse me of.
show me the (slanderous statements you made about me & my faith - word-for-word)
WORD FOR WORD SHOW ALL OF US WHERE I MADE, A DIRECT SLADEROUS STATEMENT ABOUT YOU !
I don’t know what your actual faith is as you are only down as protestant.
So how did I slander your faith?
Perhaps if You read it SLOWLY you might get it
and as for
BTW, I still haven’t gotten permission from a moderator to post “my opinion” about what the “water” actually is referring to in John 3:5, in case you were wondering.
I am aware of your request because I posted a message to you there, saying that they might be on holidays and that might be why you have not heard from them yet.

As for ‘your opinion’, surly you can phase it as a question and still be safe from being banned.
as in…"My opinion on water baptism is that… What do you Catholics think?
That way you are only asking a question about what our beliefs are.
 
Thetazlord, you said:

You yourself said:
“So, if water baptism is what Jesus meant, then Jesus is saying a person MUST be baptized in water to enter Heaven, since the Greek word for “must” in John 3:7 means “required” nor “normative.””

Both of these, and especially normative, are in line with Church teaching. This verse is giving a command for us to obey. This is the only ordinary means we are given to enter heaven (in the active sense, see my previous post). Jesus is giving a directive. He is not saying “God cannot bring anyone into Heaven except by the person performing this act.” He is saying: “If you want to get to Heaven, you must perform this act.” Do you see the difference, even if you do not agree with my interpretation of the verse?
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, your explanation isn’t supported by the text. My “disagreement” isn’t the issue. The issue is that Jesus isn’t saying this is the “ordinary means” to enter Heaven. Jesus is being EXCLUSIVE in His response. If Jesus was “giving a directive,” He would have worded it differently & not used such EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”). So, if “water” refers to water baptism, then Jesus is saying “water baptism” is the ONLY way to enter Heaven. The “directive, normative” explanation conflicts with Scripture that says:

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12:13)

and

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Being baptized in water for the purpose of salvation would be “normative & directive” “of yourselves” & of the “will of man” to save himself. So, Jesus is not saying that if you want to get to Heaven on your own & receive the Holy Spirit, you “must” be baptized in water. Again, Jesus doesn’t even bring up baptism during His conversation with Nicodemus. Rather, He’s saying that the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to be “born again/born of water & the Spirit.” So, if this is referring to water baptism, Jesus is saying this is the ONLY way to get into Heaven - not a “directive” or “normative.”
 
Yes !! Seriously!!!
Apart from this one line

Script alone, show me where I refer to you personally as those things you accuse me of.
show me the (slanderous statements you made about me & my faith - word-for-word)
WORD FOR WORD SHOW ALL OF US WHERE I MADE, A DIRECT SLADEROUS STATEMENT ABOUT YOU !
I don’t know what your actual faith is as you are only down as protestant.
So how did I slander your faith?
Perhaps if You read it SLOWLY you might get it
and as for

I am aware of your request because I posted a message to you there, saying that they might be on holidays and that might be why you have not heard from them yet.

As for ‘your opinion’, surly you can phase it as a question and still be safe from being banned.
as in…"My opinion on water baptism is that… What do you Catholics think?
That way you are only asking a question about what our beliefs are.
LOL! Since you obviously read the link, & you can’t identify the specific slanderous things you said, & could only come up with that SINGLE comment you made - which isn’t even the comment I was referring to - I doubt you would recognize them as slanderous even if I posted them. After all, if you read them & didn’t recognize them as being slanderous, why should I believe you would recognize them (or even acknowledge them) if I posted them to you. Sorry, but we’re done. Slander is where I draw the line - Matthew 7:6; 10:14. Good day, sir.
 
Since you appear to know the answer, why don’t you just tell us how did the good thief get his water baptism?
Because as I’ve explained, I’m waiting to hear from a moderator to get permission, so I’m not misinterpreted to be proselytizing, rather than just giving my opinion. You have to remember, this is a Catholic forum, so Catholics can kind of get away with more than ex-catholics & other Protestants can. So, to be on the safe side, we’ll have to wait.
So for the 3rd time, is John’s (the Baptist) baptism effective or not? He baptized with water but not the Holy Spirit. Let us look at both Water AND Spirit and not just water. Jesus didn’t baptize his 12 apostles as far as I can make out. John the Baptist did water baptism to at least some of them. Jesus didn’t baptized the apostles with the Holy Spirit although he at a later stage breathed on them. Does that count as baptism with the HS in your books?
John specifically stated he came to baptize with water for repentance. So, of course it was “effective.” But it wasn’t for salvation. Remember, he called people to “Repent!” first, and “then” they were baptized in water. But, then John said, “I came to baptize with water for repentance, but there will be One Who will baptize with the Holy Spirit” - not “baptized in water & the Spirit.” John made this clear the distinction between “baptism of water for repentance” & “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

When Jesus “breathed” on His disciples after He rose from the dead, but before His ascension, that wasn’t a “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” That was to give them the power & authority to do the things He instructed them to do. The baptism of the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost when the Church was established. But even at Pentecost, a person received the Holy Spirit first, before they were baptized in water. So, when Jesus says you “must” be born again, & “unless” you are born of water & the Spirit you “cannot” enter the kingdom of God, He’s not referring to water baptism. Otherwise, Jesus would be saying that is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.”
I didn’t say it is fact, just could be. I am making a point that you can not reject that God can effect water baptism in other ways if he so wished. I am just suggesting a possible way.
The point is that the interpretation of “water” refers to water baptism, not “water baptism in other ways.” It’s clear that the “water” refers to baptismal water, which is physical, literal water, not “symbolic water.”
Lastly, what is your definition of water baptism? We didn’t define it, what are its attributes. Without common agreement what it is, we can never have a sensible discussion. Perhaps what you think it is is not what we think it is.
The same thing the Catholic church has been teaching for centuries - being baptized in physical, liquid water. I really don’t know why you asked this. No offense intended, but the definition is kind of implied in the wording - “water” “baptism.”

God bless! 🙂
 
LOL! Since you obviously read the link, & you can’t identify the specific slanderous things you said, & could only come up with that SINGLE comment you made - which isn’t even the comment I was referring to - I doubt you would recognize them as slanderous even if I posted them. After all, if you read them & didn’t recognize them as being slanderous, why should I believe you would recognize them (or even acknowledge them) if I posted them to you. Sorry, but we’re done. Slander is where I draw the line - Matthew 7:6; 10:14. Good day, sir.
No one else that read that post found anything slanderous there.
And you didn’t give exact example because their aren’t any,
you read into it only what you wanted to see.
so that you don’t have to answer questions that prove you were wrong.
I’m more than happy to step out of this cat and mouse thread.
but do the rest here a favour and post your proof as a question.
other wise it’s like a child with her hands behind her back saying
“guess what I’ve got.” “nope”
“guess what I’ve got.” “nope”
“guess what I’ve got.” “nope”

Pointless.
Originally Posted by thetazlord
what do you base this “belief” on, other than yourself?
I base it on something that causes weak minded self professing no nothings to run screaming from the ONE TRUE FAITH,
I base it on faith in God Almighty.
Meaning, (People who run from the ONE TRUE FAITH Profess that they know more than the church fathers).

I am not hiding in a private interpretation cult. * Meaning, (I am of the Catholic Faith)*
I am not waving around a pathetic excuse as a good enough reason to desert. Meaning, (I refer to my Faith)
I am not one who claims that he has the answers yet shows no proof of them. Meaning, (I show proof)
You have never actually answered questions to the satisfaction of any of us. (and still haven’t)
I have seen here, many people give answers that are correct and satisfactory to all who understand. but how do we show the truth to the imperceptive? Meaning, (How can we prove to one who has no perceptive of what we are saying) *(From a Catholic point of View) *
how do we satisfy the deliberately ignorant. Meaning, (How do we show someone who won’t open their eyes)

all of which you will twist to suit yourself.
There are plenty of other threads with Non Catholics who are asking real questions
and are not just here for a chest beating exercise.
Self imposed pity is where I draw the line. we are NOW done. Good day to you.:slapfight:

Though you will at this point reject it,
The fatted Calf is always there. Amen.
:tiphat:
 
Because as I’ve explained, I’m waiting to hear from a moderator to get permission, so I’m not misinterpreted to be proselytizing, rather than just giving my opinion. You have to remember, this is a Catholic forum, so Catholics can kind of get away with more than ex-catholics & other Protestants can. So, to be on the safe side, we’ll have to wait.
Ok, so we’ll just wait. While waiting for that, is what you are holding back been discussed by the Christian community previously? Perhaps one of the heresies or is this a new thing altogether? I don’t think there is anything prohibiting discussing heresies here. Atheists come with a lot more worse position than you I’d imagine. And they do offer their opinions freely without the mods coming down too hard on them. Are you sure your stuff need to be censor approved?
 
JOHN 3:1-5 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 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.

.
thetazlord.
.JOHN 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say TO YOU, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
. WHO is the “TO YOU” that Jesus is giving this command to here in John 3:5?

A. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Nicodemus (who represents mankind).
B. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself.
C. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself AND Nicodemus.
D. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to nobody.
.
I asked you here (in a different way) but you did not answer.
 
Thetazlord i#139
you are incorrect that Church has historically believed that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew.
No facts have been, or can be, quoted to support any teaching of the Catholic Church against that reality, because the reality lies in the overwhelming historical evidence.

**The Gospels — Direct Testimonies or Late Writings?
by Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier **
Extracts:
“Let’s be straightforward: I believe the Gospels to be direct testimonies that tell real and non-mythic or symbolic facts. I do not believe it by fideism — not because of my faith — but because I have rational, scientific, carefully researched reasons to do so. Indeed, we who affirm the absolute historicity of the Gospels are now only a small minority. Although this truth of the faith was strongly asserted by the Second Vatican Council and has been believed by millions of Catholics throughout the centuries of Christianity, we nowadays seem to be considered as outsiders. Let’s examine here the different aspects of this situation.

“Concerning the philological research (B), two specialists thoroughly analyzed the language of the Gospels: Fr. Jean Carmignac, one of the greatest experts in biblical studies in the world, and recognized as foremost in the knowledge of the Qumran Hebrew (of Jesus’ times), and Claude Tresmontant, lecturer for the Institut de France who taught for a long time in the Sorbonne University. Tresmontant is the author of an Old Testament Hebrew-to-Greek (Septuagint) dictionary. (The Septuagint was translated in the third — second century B.C.) **They both demonstrated that the Greek language used in the Gospels (all four of them for Tresmontant, the three Synoptic ones for Carmignac who did not consider St. John’s) was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. **They both consider the whole of the Gospels (excluding the Preface to St. Luke’s) and not just fragments introduced into a Greek text. They both provide tens (may be hundreds) of proofs. Fr. Carmignac, in La Naissance des Evangiles Synoptiques, points out semitisms of thought, vocabulary, syntax, style, composition, transmission, translation and even multiple semitisms.” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, January 2005].
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6336

Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier is a professor in the Department of Theology of the European Humanities University, Minsk, Belarus. This article originally appeared in Les Dossiers d’Archeologie, No. 249 (special issue on Jesus). It was translated into English by Agnes Souto and Moura-Ausser and edited by Jerome D. Gilmartin. Professor Ceruti-Cendrier is Administrator of the Paris-based Association Jean Carmignac (for the safeguarding of the historicity of the Gospels) and head of the editorial staff of its bulletin. She and her husband Gianni, an Italian diplomat, reside in Rome. This is her first article in HPR.

But nothing, in the Gospels or the New Testament can be changed and separated from Christ’s own established Catholic Church without harming His Message which is historically willed by Him. The erroneous figments of imagination limiting the Christ to an assumed meaning against that taught by His Church exposes the caricature when seen in the light of His authoritative establishment of His Church.

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

The reason to believe the Sacred Scriptures is precisely because the Magisterium has taught emphatically that “the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in the written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.” [Ecumenical Council Vatican II, *Dei Verbum, 10]. Not in every Tom, Dick or Harry.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Okay…let’s get back on topic (of baptism) and knock off the personal back and forth.

10 posts have been removed and a couple edited.

Let the discussion proceed from here.***
 
Then if that’s true, then the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism is incorrect. See why?

“UNLESS one is born of water baptized in water] he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.”
“You MUST (Greek: “are required to”) be born again.”

Either baptism by desire & of blood is wrong, or the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism is wrong, because they contradict each other. Do you see “why” now?

Blessings to you as well. 🙂
No, what you are saying is not true, for in another part of the Scriptures we read that Jesus says: “**Amen, amen **I say unto you: **Except **you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, **you shall not **have life in you.” Jesus’ words here–as well as in the other text–must be taken within context (within the context of all of the Bible and all of His words and life), otherwise, we’d have to say that the Church contradicts Jesus when she says that all those who are too sick to receive His Body and Blood aren’t necessarily going to hell, or all the faithful who can’t get to Mass to receive Jesus in Holy Communion aren’t necessarily going to hell; etc.–which is not true. To help you: Your problem seems to be that you are taking one single thing that Jesus says with no regard for the Church’s understanding of it, and you are understanding it outside of context like a Protestant, which you mustn’t do. Please read a good commentary on the Bible passages that give you difficulty. St. Thomas Aquinas has a very good one called Catena Aurea. Yes, you are understanding the Bible passage about water out of context like a Protestant does, so please refer to a good Catholic commentary for an explanation of this Bible passage that you don’t understand. God bless you.
 
Hi, All ~

Below is the interlinear text using the ISA program.

There are several verses in the NT that refer specifically to H2O water baptism. Why is it so important to make John 3:3-5 be referring to H2O water baptism?

The context, to me, clearly refers to womb birth AND Spiritual birth - in these verses. Just as clearly (to me), H2O water baptism is found in other verses (which would support the Church and other religions in performing this rite).

If I’m going to take the meaning out of context, I could just as easily say that it is referring to the bitter salt water of tears shed in remorse over committed sin?

Interlinear

John 3:3 - Answered the Jesus and said to him, "Verily, verily I am saying to you: if ever no anyone may-be-being-begotten anew, not he-is-able to-be-perceiving the kingdom of the God.

John 3:4 - Is-saying toward Him, the Nicodemus, "How can human to-be-begotten veteran (old) being no he-is-able into the cavity of the mother of him second-time to-be-entering and to-be-begotten?

John 3:5 - Answered the Jesus, "Verily, verily I-am-saying to you if ever no any may-be-being-begotten out of water and of spirit, not he-is-able to-be-into-coming into the kingdom of the God.

“being begotten out of water and of spirit”…I have never heard of “baptism” being a practice by which one is ‘begotten’.

I accept that some feel these verses do speak to H2O baptism - my question is why there is such a…need?..to make the verses of John, specifically, be speaking of such. Baptism, as a sacrament, is easily supported elsewhere.

Best to All,

Pamela
 
I’m not the one putting on the limitation - JESUS is. JESUS is the One Who said a person CAN’T enter the kingdom of God UNLESS he is born of water & the Spirit. JESUS also stated you MUST be born again.
Indeed.

This is very Catholic. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top