Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[ready]

Indeed.

This is very Catholic.

BUT it is not very Catholic to *interpret *Jesus’ words like a Protestant, which is what the post-er is doing. God bless you.

 

[PRmerger]

BUT it is not very Catholic to *interpret *Jesus’ words like a Protestant, which is what the post-er is doing. God bless you.

I’m still not sure what thetazlord’s argument is. Catholics agree that no one can enter heaven unless he is born of water and the spirit.

Amen to that!

 

[fhansen]

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.”

But in the *whole *context of the Christian faith, derived from its Scripture and its Tradition, culpability is *always *related to knowledge. God doesn’t punish for behavior we have no choice in.

I’m sorry that you find Scripture so “unclear,” but God never intended it to be unclear.

Speculative presumption regarding Gods purpose for, and mans’ proper use of, Scripture.

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.

“Can be understood”? According to you there’s nothing unclear about Scripture-so go ahead, give us the full explanation of Revelation.

 

[ready]

I’m still not sure what thetazlord’s argument is. Catholics agree that no one can enter heaven unless he is born of water and the spirit.

Amen to that!

I believe he/she denies that if a man has an implicit or explicit desire for baptism without the sacrament, then he can be saved. He seems to have fallen into the same error as the disobedient Fr. Leonard Feeney. God bless you.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe he/she denies that if a man has an implicit or explicit desire for baptism without the sacrament, then he can be saved. He seems to have fallen into the same error as the disobedient Fr. Leonard Feeney. God bless you.

Then how does one account for the Good Thief being told he is going to heaven?

 

[thetazlord]

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.

Actually, you “do” have the same problem there. But since thread is about John 3:5, baptism, & salvation, not John Ch.6, communion, & the meaning of the Eucharist, let’s stick to one subject, okay?

 

[thetazlord]

I believe he/she denies that if a man has an implicit or explicit desire for baptism without the sacrament, then he can be saved. He seems to have fallen into the same error as the disobedient Fr. Leonard Feeney. God bless you.

No, that’s not my argument. With all due respect for the Catholic religion & for CAF, I don’t believe - Scripturally - that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. Because if that is the correct interpretation, then Jesus would be saying that nobody could “enter the kingdom of God” unless they were baptized in water. This would disqualify those who are baptized by desire because they weren’t baptized in water. I’ve explained this too - several times. I don’t know why people aren’t understanding this.

 

[thetazlord]

I’m still not sure what thetazlord’s argument is. Catholics agree that no one can enter heaven unless he is born of water and the spirit.

Amen to that!

Perhaps this post I just wrote might help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12619238&postcount=156

I’ll also be posting a reply to some posters that they have been asking for some time. So stay tuned!

 

[ready]

Then how does one account for the Good Thief being told he is going to heaven?

Baptism of desire. (Some theologians say baptism of blood). God bless you.

 

[thetazlord]

Several posters have personally asked me, as a former Catholic, what “my opinion” of what the “water” refers to in John 3:5, since I no longer believe that it refers to the waters of baptism. However, so as not to express contempt for the Catholic faith, disrespect for anyone here at CAF or their beliefs, or make any attempt to proselytize Catholics away from their faith, I respectfully sought guidance from a moderator. Having receiving godly guidance, I have chosen my words carefully, so as not to do any of the above, but at the same time, be faithful to God-breathed Scripture. So, thanks to those of you who have asked me for “my opinion” & for your patience.

The key to understanding what the “water” Jesus is referring to in John 3:5 is found in John 3:10 when after Jesus explains to Nicodemus - numerous times - how to “enter the kingdom of God” & Nicodemus asks “how can this be,” Jesus states:
“Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?”

We know from John 3:1 that Nicodemus was a Pharisee. So, what were Pharisees who were “teachers of Israel” teachers of? They didn’t “teach” water baptism. That is something John the Baptist taught for repentance, not the Pharisees. In fact, in Matthew’s Gospel, the Pharisees rejected it (Matthew 3:7 onward). Rather, the Pharisees were “teachers” of the OLD Testament Scriptures. Therefore, what Jesus expected the “teacher” Nicodemus to “understand” would have been from the Old Testament. But the Pharisees wouldn’t have “taught” water baptism, since water baptism wasn’t “taught” in the Old Testament.

Rather, in the OLD Testament, whenever “water” is used figuratively, especially along with “Spirit,” it always refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit:

“‘For I will pour out water on the thirsty land
And streams on the dry ground;
I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring
And My blessing on your descendants;
And they will spring up among the grass
Like poplars by streams of water.’
This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’S’;
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, ‘Belonging to the LORD,’
And will name Israel’s name with honor” (Isaiah 44:3-5)

Notice how Isaiah equates to “pouring out” of “water” with the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit on the “descendants” of Israel. This is not a reference to water baptism, since OT Israel didn’t engage in water baptism. Rather Isaiah is using "water’ figuratively for the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, just as the apostle Paul does in Titus 3:5-6:

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5-7)

Again, this verse by the apostle Paul has nothing to do with water baptism, but is referring back to passages like Isaiah 44:3-5 that are using “water” along with “Spirit” to speak figuratively about the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which foreshadow Jesus speaking about being “born of water & the Spirit” in John 3:5. Jesus goes onto explain this in John 4:10-14 when He offers the “living water” to the Samaritan woman, which again, He’s not talking about water baptism. In fact, He doesn’t even mention baptism. Rather, this is a reference back to Jeremiah 2:13:

“For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.”

Notice, Jesus also uses “living water” in John 4:10-14 to refer to the “water” that gives “eternal life.” So, the “water” in John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptismal regeneration. It has to do with the fact that they ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit - be “born of water & the Spirit” = “born again” = “born of the Spirit” (John 3:3,5,7). Anyone who receives this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which would include OT saints, NT saints, babies who die (even ones that aren’t baptized), as well as those who are mentally challenged & die, would receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit. And this understanding in no way conflicts with the rest of Scripture. And what Jesus goes onto say that those who have the ability to “believe” will inherit eternal life (John 3:16), but those who have the ability to willfully “disbelieve” will be condemned & not receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (Mark 16:16b; John 3:18). But that’s because these later passages are addressing those who have the “ability” to believe or disbelieve. Those who can’t (like babies & mentally challenged individuals) neither have the ability to believe nor the ability to disbelieve, & Mark 16:16b & John 3:18 don’t apply to these individuals. However, once a person reaches an age to “know the difference between good & evil” (Isaiah 7:14), then they now have this ability to believe or disbelieve, & are now “accountable” for their belief & disbelief that babies & mentally challenged people don’t have.

 

[ready]

No, that’s not my argument. With all due respect for the Catholic religion & for CAF, I don’t believe - Scripturally - that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. Because if that is the correct interpretation, then Jesus would be saying that nobody could “enter the kingdom of God” unless they were baptized in water. This would disqualify those who are baptized by desire because they weren’t baptized in water. I’ve explained this too - several times. I don’t know why people aren’t understanding this.

I believe I have understood you well. You have fallen into Fr. Leonard Feeney’s error. Baptism of desire has been taught as far back as the teaching of our Church Fathers and some, like St. Alphonsus de Liguori, even believe that baptism of desire is de fide. Surely, you can’t say that St. Alphonsus is a heretic and that the Church has been negligent all these years in not correcting him. God bless you.

 

[thetazlord]

I believe I have understood you well. You have fallen into Fr. Leonard Feeney’s error. Baptism of desire has been taught as far back as the teaching of our Church Fathers and some, like St. Alphonsus de Liguori, even believe that baptism of desire is de fide. Surely, you can’t say that St. Alphonsus is a heretic and that the Church has been negligent all these years in not correcting him. God bless you.

No, I’m not calling him a heretic. However, the writings of ECF’s are not Inspired (God-breathed). Only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, anybody’s opinions (including mine, yours, & his) needs to be compared TO Scripture, since that’s what Scripture commands (Acts 17:11). And not all ECF’s agreed that water baptism is the meaning of the “water” in John 3:5. So, saying that he “agrees with the majority” doesn’t automatically mean that he is understanding that Scripture correctly. For example, if he believes that baptism by desire is a legitimate means of salvation and believes that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, there’s a problem. Because in John 3:5, Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE words when He talks about the “water” & Spirit that is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God. So, by him “also” believing in baptism by desire, he’s actually contradicting the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism, which John 3:5 would be saying is the only way to enter Heaven. So, I don’t think you understand what I’m actually saying, but check out my previous post on this thread, where I explain it better.

 

[thetazlord]

“Can be understood”? According to you there’s nothing unclear about Scripture-so go ahead, give us the full explanation of Revelation.

“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.

 

[stewstew03]

Several posters have personally asked me, as a former Catholic, what “my opinion” of what the “water” refers to in John 3:5, since I no longer believe that it refers to the waters of baptism. However, so as not to express contempt for the Catholic faith, disrespect for anyone here at CAF or their beliefs, or make any attempt to proselytize Catholics away from their faith, I respectfully sought guidance from a moderator. Having receiving godly guidance, I have chosen my words carefully, so as not to do any of the above, but at the same time, be faithful to God-breathed Scripture. So, thanks to those of you who have asked me for “my opinion” & for your patience.

The key to understanding what the “water” Jesus is referring to in John 3:5 is found in John 3:10 when after Jesus explains to Nicodemus - numerous times - how to “enter the kingdom of God” & Nicodemus asks “how can this be,” Jesus states:
“Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?”

We know from John 3:1 that Nicodemus was a Pharisee. So, what were Pharisees who were “teachers of Israel” teachers of? They didn’t “teach” water baptism. That is something John the Baptist taught for repentance, not the Pharisees. In fact, in Matthew’s Gospel, the Pharisees rejected it (Matthew 3:7 onward). Rather, the Pharisees were “teachers” of the OLD Testament Scriptures. Therefore, what Jesus expected the “teacher” Nicodemus to “understand” would have been from the Old Testament. But the Pharisees wouldn’t have “taught” water baptism, since water baptism wasn’t “taught” in the Old Testament.

Rather, in the OLD Testament, whenever “water” is used figuratively, especially along with “Spirit,” it always refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit:

“‘For I will pour out water on the thirsty land
And streams on the dry ground;
I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring
And My blessing on your descendants;
And they will spring up among the grass
Like poplars by streams of water.’
This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’S’;
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, ‘Belonging to the LORD,’
And will name Israel’s name with honor” (Isaiah 44:3-5)

Notice how Isaiah equates to “pouring out” of “water” with the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit on the “descendants” of Israel. This is not a reference to water baptism, since OT Israel didn’t engage in water baptism. Rather Isaiah is using "water’ figuratively for the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, just as the apostle Paul does in Titus 3:5-6:

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5-7)

Again, this verse by the apostle Paul has nothing to do with water baptism, but is referring back to passages like Isaiah 44:3-5 that are using “water” along with “Spirit” to speak figuratively about the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which foreshadow Jesus speaking about being “born of water & the Spirit” in John 3:5. Jesus goes onto explain this in John 4:10-14 when He offers the “living water” to the Samaritan woman, which again, He’s not talking about water baptism. In fact, He doesn’t even mention baptism. Rather, this is a reference back to Jeremiah 2:13:

“For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.”

Notice, Jesus also uses “living water” in John 4:10-14 to refer to the “water” that gives “eternal life.” So, the “water” in John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptismal regeneration. It has to do with the fact that they ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit - be “born of water & the Spirit” = “born again” = “born of the Spirit” (John 3:3,5,7). Anyone who receives this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which would include OT saints, NT saints, babies who die (even ones that aren’t baptized), as well as those who are mentally challenged & die, would receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit. And this understanding in no way conflicts with the rest of Scripture. And what Jesus goes onto say that those who have the ability to “believe” will inherit eternal life (John 3:16), but those who have the ability to willfully “disbelieve” will be condemned & not receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (Mark 16:16b; John 3:18). But that’s because these later passages are addressing those who have the “ability” to believe or disbelieve. Those who can’t (like babies & mentally challenged individuals) neither have the ability to believe nor the ability to disbelieve, & Mark 16:16b & John 3:18 don’t apply to these individuals. However, once a person reaches an age to “know the difference between good & evil” (Isaiah 7:14), then they now have this ability to believe or disbelieve, & are now “accountable” for their belief & disbelief that babies & mentally challenged people don’t have.

This is classic prooftexting… but aside from that, it appears you agree (generally) with the Church’s teaching that all those who are led by the Holy Spirit are saved (see CCC 1281).

What I don’t see in your papal bull is a reference to how the Apostles viewed baptism. It appears you have not read the Acts of the Apostles or St. Peter’s letter’s.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Several posters have personally asked me, as a former Catholic, what “my opinion” of what the “water” refers to in John 3:5, since I no longer believe that it refers to the waters of baptism. However, so as not to express contempt for the Catholic faith, disrespect for anyone here at CAF or their beliefs, or make any attempt to proselytize Catholics away from their faith, I respectfully sought guidance from a moderator. Having receiving godly guidance, I have chosen my words carefully, so as not to do any of the above, but at the same time, be faithful to God-breathed Scripture. So, thanks to those of you who have asked me for “my opinion” & for your patience.

The key to understanding what the “water” Jesus is referring to in John 3:5 is found in John 3:10 when after Jesus explains to Nicodemus - numerous times - how to “enter the kingdom of God” & Nicodemus asks “how can this be,” Jesus states:
“Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?”

We know from John 3:1 that Nicodemus was a Pharisee. So, what were Pharisees who were “teachers of Israel” teachers of? They didn’t “teach” water baptism. That is something John the Baptist taught for repentance, not the Pharisees. In fact, in Matthew’s Gospel, the Pharisees rejected it (Matthew 3:7 onward). Rather, the Pharisees were “teachers” of the OLD Testament Scriptures. Therefore, what Jesus expected the “teacher” Nicodemus to “understand” would have been from the Old Testament. But the Pharisees wouldn’t have “taught” water baptism, since water baptism wasn’t “taught” in the Old Testament.

Rather, in the OLD Testament, whenever “water” is used figuratively, especially along with “Spirit,” it always refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit:

“‘For I will pour out water on the thirsty land
And streams on the dry ground;
I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring
And My blessing on your descendants;
And they will spring up among the grass
Like poplars by streams of water.’
This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’S’;
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, ‘Belonging to the LORD,’
And will name Israel’s name with honor” (Isaiah 44:3-5)

Notice how Isaiah equates to “pouring out” of “water” with the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit on the “descendants” of Israel. This is not a reference to water baptism, since OT Israel didn’t engage in water baptism. Rather Isaiah is using "water’ figuratively for the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, just as the apostle Paul does in Titus 3:5-6:

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5-7)

Again, this verse by the apostle Paul has nothing to do with water baptism, but is referring back to passages like Isaiah 44:3-5 that are using “water” along with “Spirit” to speak figuratively about the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which foreshadow Jesus speaking about being “born of water & the Spirit” in John 3:5. Jesus goes onto explain this in John 4:10-14 when He offers the “living water” to the Samaritan woman, which again, He’s not talking about water baptism. In fact, He doesn’t even mention baptism. Rather, this is a reference back to Jeremiah 2:13:

“For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.”

Notice, Jesus also uses “living water” in John 4:10-14 to refer to the “water” that gives “eternal life.” So, the “water” in John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptismal regeneration. It has to do with the fact that they ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit - be “born of water & the Spirit” = “born again” = “born of the Spirit” (John 3:3,5,7). Anyone who receives this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which would include OT saints, NT saints, babies who die (even ones that aren’t baptized), as well as those who are mentally challenged & die, would receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit. And this understanding in no way conflicts with the rest of Scripture. And what Jesus goes onto say that those who have the ability to “believe” will inherit eternal life (John 3:16), but those who have the ability to willfully “disbelieve” will be condemned & not receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (Mark 16:16b; John 3:18). But that’s because these later passages are addressing those who have the “ability” to believe or disbelieve. Those who can’t (like babies & mentally challenged individuals) neither have the ability to believe nor the ability to disbelieve, & Mark 16:16b & John 3:18 don’t apply to these individuals. However, once a person reaches an age to “know the difference between good & evil” (Isaiah 7:14), then they now have this ability to believe or disbelieve, & are now “accountable” for their belief & disbelief that babies & mentally challenged people don’t have.

The Pharisees didn’t engage in “baptism” Sacramentally understood by Christians, however, the practice of a ritual washing was common and is common to Judaism today - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism

 

[Abu]

Thetazlord #161
Only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

The first root cause of the error promulgated by Thetazlord in this thread is demonstrated by his taking 2 Tim 3:16 completely out of context by inserting “ONLY” – a gigantic contextual error of a type common to all dissenters. The text in reality reads: “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous.”

How can anyone get to the stage of having any Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, but ignoring the reality that the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God came ONLY through the fact that Christ established His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church which then authenticated, as God’s instrument of truth, which writings were to be included and which excluded?
Simply by denying the facts of history and deconstructing that reality for their own as Luther did also. The phobia that maintains that any individual can determine and impose their own interpretation and exclude Christ’s Church is the root of all the misinformation and confusion abroad.

As the Sacred Scriptures emphasise:
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1). St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

Jesus, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Thus: “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.” [CCC #1260].

 

[TimothyH]

Only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

I have no desire to debate water baptism but have to call you out on this misquote of Scripture. It does not say “Only Scripture” but “All Scripture”.

Apollos was praised by Luke for his accuracy with God’s word (Acts 18). Timothy was admonished by Paul that he learn to accurately handle God’s word (2 Timothy 2). We should strive for no less.

-Tim-

 

[thetazlord]

This is classic prooftexting… but aside from that, it appears you agree (generally) with the Church’s teaching that all those who are led by the Holy Spirit are saved (see CCC 1281).

No, not really, because in addition to being “led by the Spirit,” Catholics also believe that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. But if that is true, then that would mean that a person “must” be baptized in water or they “cannot” enter the kingdom of God. That would mean UNbaptized people, like UNbaptized martyrs & UNbaptized people who “desire” baptism, but die before they get the chance would not end up in Heaven. That’s not what my explanation is saying. So, it’s really not the same, because this explanation - supported by Scripture - agrees with the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus that you “must” be born again & “unless” one is “born of water & the Spirit (receives the ‘outpouring’ of the Holy Spirit’) he “cannot” enter the kingdom of God.” No ritualistic act - on the part of the person - of washing of physical water is involved. This “outpouring of the Spirit” is the “act” of God, Who is the One Who makes us “born from above.”

What I don’t see in your papal bull is a reference to how the Apostles viewed baptism. It appears you have not read the Acts of the Apostles or St. Peter’s letter’s.

LOL! Cute! I don’t look it as a “papal bull.” I don’t qualify. As a former Catholic, I’ve read through Acts & Peter’s epistles, so I have read those verses & what the apostles believed about water. So, obviously, I don’t agree that those verses in Acts, Peter’s epistles, & Paul’s epistles support water baptismal salvation. Because if they did, then we’re back to my question in my OP, “if” that is true, then the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. And “if” that is true, then Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language (“unless,” “cannot,” & “must” in John 3:7), which means that Jesus would be saying that being baptized in water is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” However, the understanding that the “water” refers to the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” - again, backed up by OT Scripture - doesn’t have this problem with Jesus using EXCLUSIVE words. Jesus would be saying EVERYBODY “must” receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (“born of water & the Spirit”) or the “cannot enter the kingdom of God.”) Do you see the difference?

Thanks for the response though. God bless!

 

[thetazlord]

The Pharisees didn’t engage in “baptism” Sacramentally understood by Christians, however, the practice of a ritual washing was common and is common to Judaism today - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism

Yes, but this ritualistic washing in water performed in the OT wasn’t a “condition” of salvation, & entrance into Heaven, like the interpretation of the “water” to mean in John 3:5. It was one of the hundreds of commands given by God that an Israelite did out of obedience to ritualistically “cleanse” oneself, after a nocturnal discharge, after battle, or simple hand-washing. Even their entire clothes would be washed as well, which has nothing to do with “washing away sins.” So, this isn’t what the “water” Jesus was referring to in John 3:5 on how to “enter the kingdom of God.” The apostles did baptize those who converted to Christianity & repented, but - likewise - they did this after they converted, & likewise, out of obedience to a command given by our Lord, but not as a “means” or “condition” of “entering the kingdom of God.” The “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit is. See my previous explanation & compare it to Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

I have no desire to debate water baptism but have to call you out on this misquote of Scripture. It does not say “Only Scripture” but “All Scripture”.

Apollos was praised by Luke for his accuracy with God’s word (Acts 18). Timothy was admonished by Paul that he learn to accurately handle God’s word (2 Timothy 2). We should strive for no less.

-Tim-

This thread isn’t about “Sola Scriptura,” but about John 3:5, the meaning of “water” in the verse, & salvation. And since the NT “is” God-breathed Scripture, the question is what does the “water” refer to, which is backed up by God-breathed Scripture. I’m attempting to “sway” people to what “I think.” You have to make that decision freely on your own. So, go back & reread my previous explanation & decide for yourself. God bless!