Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[thetazlord]

That’s interesting!
I wonder (and I may be wrong) but are you here looking for an answer,
or an excuse? (That sounded mean, it’s not meant to be) just asking.

I don’t think you’re being “mean.” I think you asking a genuine question, just as I am. To answer your question though, I’m looking for an answer. I just haven’t received one yet.

because if you genuinely believe what you state, about God-breathed Scripture not being in error, then why are you stating that John is correct but Jesus is not (or visa-versa). aren’t you yourself, proclaiming an error in scripture here?

I’m not saying Jesus is “wrong.” I’m saying that if you believe that Jesus is saying that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then - in the Greek - Jesus is saying that water baptism is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” Yet, later on, Jesus promises the UNbaptized thief on the cross “Paradise/Heaven,” even though he was not baptized IN water. How do you reconcile Jesus allowing the UNbaptized thief into Heaven, with Jesus presumably saying a person MUST be baptized in water, otherwise they CAN’T enter Heaven? So, I’m saying “John is correct but Jesus is wrong.” Rather, I’m pointing out that the assumption that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism leads to that conclusion. An assumption that I don’t believe, based on the Greek.

So if you take the GREEK translation ‘from above’ then it is very possible that one can be Baptised in Purgatory ANEW. (even though you don’t believe it exists)

But in my Catechism, it didn’t teach that a person gets baptized IN WATER in Purgatory. There are “fires” in Purgatory (based on that belief), not baptismal waters. The Catechism does not teach that. Again, water baptism occurs on earth, not in Purgatory after a person dies.

This Bible states at the front that it is,
(translated from the Hebrew and Greek originals).

You see bread and wine at Mass, do you believe it becomes the Blood and Body of our Lord,
even though it still has the outward appearance of bread and wine?
Christ said “This is my body which is given up for you”. but it wasn’t a loaf of bread on the cross. so did Our Lord contradicting Himself?

Again, this is not related to the OP, & would cause a “split” on the forum. Could we remain on one subject? Thanks.

Do you believe that it is the water that baptises or the Spirit?

Sorry about the length of this one.

John the Baptist & Jesus clearly states that in the Church age, a person is baptized in the Spirit. Beyond that, unless I get permission from a moderator, I don’t want to risk forum rules & receive an infraction. So, I can’t comment more than that. No problem about the length. God bless.

 

[thetazlord]

Really? All this and you already have your own answer, ready to post, which coincidentally contradicts Catholic teaching. I was wondering why you kept rejecting all the perfectly logical answers people took their time to explain to you, and I was wondering why you repeatedly kept saying “IN (all caps) water.”

I hope they let you post it, I’m sure it’s nothing groundbreaking. Sorry if I’m sounding slightly annoyed with what seems to be a fake question.

Edited to add: Why so concerned about breaking forum rules? Just lay it out and ask “what about this?” That’s what the apologetics forum is for.

To answer your second question, first: if I’m given the privilege & permission to post on CA forums, out of respect for CA, I need to follow their rules. If I don’t get permission, then I’d be willfully breaking them, & if the mods find out, then they would have the right to give me an infraction. Are you advocating me breaking forum rules?? That surprises me.

Let me answer your first question with a question. The “perfectly logical answers” I’ve received go something like this:

1. Jesus is talking water baptism in John 3:5.
2. Therefore, if this is true, then Jesus is saying that the only way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to be baptized in water.
3. However, it is also believed that an UNbaptized person can also “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized in water.

How can 2 & 3 be both “right” at the same time? How can it be “perfectly logical” for Jesus to say that the only way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to be baptized in water, & in the same breath also believe that UNbaptized people can also “enter the kingdom of God”? Please explain this “logically.”

And the reason why I put “IN” water in caps, is because I notice most people overlook the fact that the interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism, would mean that since it would be referring to water baptism, then that would mean that water would HAVE to be involved. Ergo, if water is involved, then if a person is not baptized IN water, then “how” can they “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water, based on the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus (“Unless,” “cannot,” must") in John 3:5, based on their meanings in the original Greek?

Hope this answers your questions.

 

[thetazlord]

St. John the Baptist baptized with water only, as a sign of one’s repentence. This means leveling the hills and filling in the valleys of their own life, so that they would have a straight and even road to God. This baptism was only one of cleaning up one’s life.

St. John the Evangelist is in contrast to St. John the Baptist’s baptism with that of Christ’s. For Christ’s baptism is not only that of John the Baptist’s of getting rid of sin, but also of receiving the Holy Spirit, who now resides in the soul. So that a man, with Christ’s baptism, is now born again of God, that is of the Holy Spirit who now lives(is born) in him.

Any other way of being baptised is another thing and is not treated in John 3, for he is only answering a question of Nicodemus. Other types of baptisms are answered by the church.

Thanks for the response, but it really doesn’t address the question I asked in the OP. Jesus makes it abundantly clear, that “born of water & the Spirit” is the only way to “enter the kingdom of God.” This is more apparent in the Greek, than in English. And if you read the conversation between Jesus & Nicodemus, Jesus’ response isn’t focused just on Nicodemus. He’s answering his question about how people in general are “born again” or “born of water & the Spirit.” You might want to go back & reread my OP, because I don’t think you’re understanding the bigger issue.

 

[thetazlord]

I ask you this:

You answer this:

Then you try to infer “water” doesn’t really mean “water” . . . .

. . . and you want the readers of this thread to think you are not “imputing your interpretation into the text”?

It sounds like this is “all about your interpretation” despite you declaring “this post is not about “my interpretation.””

Or are you saying something else here thetazlord?

No offense, but you’re making a lot of assumptions about me, without any evidence to back up those assumptions. And, again, if I get permission from a moderator, I’d be more than happy to answer your question. Until then, I must obey forum rules. Why do you wish for me to break them?

 

[Sandraaustin]

To answer your second question, first: if I’m given the privilege & permission to post on CA forums, out of respect for CA, I need to follow their rules. If I don’t get permission, then I’d be willfully breaking them, & if the mods find out, then they would have the right to give me an infraction. Are you advocating me breaking forum rules?? That surprises me.

Let me answer your first question with a question. The “perfectly logical answers” I’ve received go something like this:

1. Jesus is talking water baptism in John 3:5.
2. Therefore, if this is true, then Jesus is saying that the only way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to be baptized in water.
3. However, it is also believed that an UNbaptized person can also “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized in water.

How can 2 & 3 be both “right” at the same time? How can it be “perfectly logical” for Jesus to say that the only way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to be baptized in water, & in the same breath also believe that UNbaptized people can also “enter the kingdom of God”? Please explain this “logically.”

And the reason why I put “IN” water in caps, is because I notice most people overlook the fact that the interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism, would mean that since it would be referring to water baptism, then that would mean that water would HAVE to be involved. Ergo, if water is involved, then if a person is not baptized IN water, then “how” can they “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water, based on the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus (“Unless,” “cannot,” must") in John 3:5, based on their meanings in the original Greek?

Hope this answers your questions.

No, it didn’t. You’ve been saying the same thing for three pages.

I think posting fake questions already breaks forum rules and I wonder why you have this need to waste everyone’s time with a cat and mouse game.

But you don’t want to debate, as you stated early on, so why don’t you just state your agenda and stop trying to “catch” someone out regarding baptism? It’s so obvious you keep trying to steer the conversation your way so you can spring your own answer to your own question.

 

[Sandraaustin]

No offense, but you’re making a lot of assumptions about me, without any evidence to back up those assumptions. And, again, if I get permission from a moderator, I’d be more than happy to answer your question. Until then, I must obey forum rules. Why do you wish for me to break them?/QUOTE

The evidence is this: you keep saying the same thing over and over. After leading people and not getting the response you need, you’ve finally admitted that you already have the “answer” to your own question. Now you need a mod to give you the okay. This is troll behavior.

It’s Christmas. I’m truly sorry that you apparently have nothing better to do.

 

[fhansen]

How can 2 & 3 be both “right” at the same time? How can it be “perfectly logical” for Jesus to say that the only way to “enter the kingdom of God” is to be baptized in water, & in the same breath also believe that UNbaptized people can also “enter the kingdom of God”? Please explain this “logically.”.

The logical explanation is that God gives commands that He doesn’t expect us to obey if we’re ignorant of them or unable to carry them out, which is consistent with His infinite fairness, kindness, and mercy. But He also expects us to obey when we can, to do the best we can with what we’re given, which is consistent with his justice along with verses such as Luke 12:48 and the Parable of the Talents.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord. You stated:

Until then, I must obey forum rules. Why do you wish for me to break them?

Nobody here has asked you to “break forum rules” thetazlord. Nobody.

---

Thetazlord. You post questions on this forum thread about the need to correctly interpret John 3:3-7.

When people go outside of John 3:3-7 (for example regarding Baptism of desire), to fill out these teachings on Baptism, you cry “foul” for going outside theses verses.

Then when I asked you about the Old Testament Saints . . . . you (correctly) . . . go outside of John 3:3-7 to back it up.

**I had no problem with you doing that.

But YOU seem to have a big problem with CATHOLICS going outside John 3:3-7 on this issue.**

And I am saying THAT is inconsistent.

---

I suspect the reason WHY you can’t say what your personal interpretation of John 3:3-7 is, isn’t because you’d be “breaking forum rules”. After all, you could just say:

My PERSONAL interpretation is . . . and I know this isn’t the Catholic interpretation but I thought I could perhaps get more insights into how the Catholic view is on such a thread. . . .

This is perfectly licit. People do that sort of thing all the time here. I’ve never seen a mod. get riled over something like that.

Or you might say:

Well my PERSONAL interpretation (thetazlord’s personal interpretation) is . . . John 3:3-7 means “accepting Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” (or some such thing).

Or whatever your beliefs are on John 3:3-7 that I am allegedly making assumptions about.

(But you know where Catholics here would go with that)

But you ALSO know . . .as soon as you assert this, someone here is going to hold you to the same standard that you (think you) have been holding Catholics to here on this thread.

They will ask YOU: “Well then HOW did the Old Testament Saints get to Heaven” and you can ONLY use these verses in John 3:3-7 otherwise you thetazlord will be contradicting yourself.

It seems to me, you don’t want to be held to the same standard you think you are holding Catholics to.

---

The reason WHY Catholics are NOT contradicting themselves has to do with the law of non-contradiction and differing senses.

One sense of this command is for those of us who get the message. That is for us.

The other sense of this command (and admittedly you have to go elsewhere to get that—just like you already did regarding Old Testament Saints) is for people like the Old Testament Saints and others in the New Testament era, “who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”.

You don’t accept this second sense as the “Word of God” (except if you use it yourself).

I do.

You will insist it is a self-contradiction with John 3:3-7 while at the same time yourself being forced to go outside John 3:3-7 for whatever interpretation you have of John 3:3-7 in certain instances (as you already did when I asked you about the Old Testament Saints).

You call the Catholic teaching a “self-contradiction” but readily accept your own interpretation, because of your tradition.

The sense that WE are commanded to be Baptized in, is a different sense than what the Lord Jesus can do (as I showed why already in CCC 1257).

The Lord Jesus teaches us about the Baptism of desire that MAY (not must) occur.

The reason you can’t see it, is because you only see one place where the Lord Jesus teaches authoritatively—the Scriptures. Then you are forced to use your own personal opinion to interpret these Scriptures. which then turns out to be your own ultimate “authority”.

Or else you are forced to follow after other “traditions of men” such as the so-called “Zwickau prophets” (principally 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.

This is what you are left with thetazlord when you deny an authoritative Church that Jesus founded, protected, and still protects against error (you are left with following after yourself or following after other guys) .

You will undoubtedly respond: “Well I don’t think the Catholic Church IS that authoritative Church that Jesus founded that you talk about Cathoholic.”

That would be fine (for a beginning).

But then you NEED to ask yourself: “WHERE on earth IS that ONE TRUE Church that has the protected authoritative fullness of truth, found upon the earth?”

You need to seek beyond your own fallible interpretations.

Once you get to that point, THEN you can BEGIN to ask why the Catholic Church is or is not that Church.

Until you get that far thetazlord, you will always be following after mere “traditions of men that make void the commandments of God”. You will be forced to follow after your own personal interpretations, or ideas spawned by guys such as the “Zwickau prophets”.

You will be theologically denying 2000 years of Christian teaching such as Baptismal regeneration or the need for water AND the Spirit when Baptizing, while continuing to innovate religion to your own personal tastes and experiences . . . or . . . follow after others who have done so . . . . or some combination of both.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

Do you believe the following is possible?

On The great day of Judgment when all souls are gathered together. Those souls found worthy but unbaptised will then be baptised with water & the spirit then they will be able to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Remember that most believe that The Judgment will happen back here on earth.

 

[fhansen]

Based on the Greek, not the English, Jesus is saying that it’s not just “necessary” (under “normative” circumstances), but rather it’s “required.” Jesus gives no indication that there is any other way to “enter the kingdom of God” without being “born of water & the Spirit/born again.”

But how can you possibly know this? Were you there, at the time of Jesus, hearing everything He said, probably in Aramaic, not Greek, seeing everything He did?

 

[thetazlord]

No, it didn’t. You’ve been saying the same thing for three pages.

I think posting fake questions already breaks forum rules and I wonder why you have this need to waste everyone’s time with a cat and mouse game.

But you don’t want to debate, as you stated early on, so why don’t you just state your agenda and stop trying to “catch” someone out regarding baptism? It’s so obvious you keep trying to steer the conversation your way so you can spring your own answer to your own question.

For the third time, I have to wait for permission from a moderator BEFORE I can respond to this question. To do so otherwise, risks receiving an infraction. In the meantime, I’ve asked a very simple question, that noone has been able to give me a straightout answer. So, it’s not a “cat & mouse game.” I’m asking a very simple question, that if what I’m asking has a “perfectly logical” answer, then someone should be able to provide a “perfectly logical” answer. You say that it does, but when I spelled out the sequence from the assumption to the natural result, you didn’t comment on it. May I ask why?

 

[ericc]

The purpose of the OP is simply to ask if the “water” in John 3:5 does indeed refer to the waters of baptism - which even many non-catholics believe too - then based on the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus in John 3:5 & John 3:7 (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”) then Jesus would be saying that NOBODY could enter Heaven, “unless” they were baptized IN water. Since that would be the result of believing that the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then “how” could someone who is not baptized IN water (like those baptized by desire, baptized of blood, invincibly ignorant) “enter the kingdom of God”? Because if you believe that Jesus is referring to the waters of baptism, then how can you “also” believe that people who die who were not baptized in the waters of baptism enter Heaven? Logically, you can’t have it both ways, without contradicting the interpretation that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism & Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words in the text.

I’m not sure if it violates forum rules if I post an explanation - even with Scriptural support - that contradicts Catholic doctrine about what the “water” in John 3:5 means. I could be wrong, but I think I would need permission from a moderator. Even though you asked me directly & I would really like to answer you, I don’t want to break forum rules, or receive an infraction.

There could be another angle that one can look at.

John the Baptist baptize with water for repentance. Jesus ask the apostles on top of the baptism of water i.e. repentance to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Hence baptism requires repentance. To put it another way, in one’s mind, one must desire repentance, i.e. admit wrong doing and asking for forgiveness with an aim to avoid repetition of those sins, otherwise there is no genuine repentance. Where physical water is not available or there is no one to baptize you, especially in conditions where apostasy can mean death and one has to do it in secret and alone, I’d equate water baptism with the baptism of desire - desire for repentance as a first step.

As in John the Baptist and other OT prophets, their baptism was circumcision. I don’t recall John being baptized with water and I don’t think John will not see heaven. Jesus couldn’t have meant an absolute requirement of baptism by physical water as in the case of the good thief. In Acts 19:1-6. disciples of John the Baptist were already baptized with water but not the Holy Spirit. Paul later laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. So if Paul never chanced upon them, would these disciples have been saved since they would not have received the Holy Spirit? Or if they died before meeting the Apostles? I don’t think Jesus intended those baptized with water but not the HS will not see heaven either. To do so will mean John the Baptist has been lying to the public that those who repent will be saved and all the baptisms done by him would be invalid.

In another twist, in Acts 10:44-48. The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit prior to their baptism! Hence to interpret John 3:5 in silo fashion one would have to disregard other scriptural support for other means of salvation. The good thief wouldn’t be joining Jesus anytime soon and and Jesus would have been made a liar. John the Baptist did not save anyone with his water baptism.You are rendering a very absolute interpretation of water AND spirit but that would lead to conflicting results elsewhere. Hence the Church has wisely declared that salvation comes through different routes but she can prescribed the normative route to salvation. There are exceptions and exceptions will be handled by God such as invincible ignorance. God did not limit the number of ways that people can reach him. He can by divine fiat saves any that he chooses.

And finally do remember that Jesus has already given the binding/loosing authority to the apostles in anticipation that the Church he built on Peter could make executive decisions in his absence, (such as for those things not written in the Bible in detail John 21:25). A verse making a certain point does not necessarily negate a different point made in another verse. These are not in disagreement, only in emphasis suiting the situation of that chapter/verse. For example you would encounter verses where one is saved by :

A) Grace
B) Faith
C) Repentance
D) Baptism etc

These verses very often do not discuss other facets of salvation when viewed in isolation but which we know are true also. Therefore, your absolute viewpoint on John 3:5 must be considered together with other knowledge elsewhere in the Scriptures also. Not doing it will render other parts of Holy Scriptures false.

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord. You stated:

Nobody here has asked you to “break forum rules” thetazlord. Nobody.

Being a Protestant, & former Catholic, I’d rather play it safe & be respectful, and wait for a moderator to give me permission on “how” specifically to answer this question. I posted a request, but haven’t heard back yet. If you really want an answer soon, perhaps you could contact them yourself. Maybe you’ll get a response quicker than I could.

---

Thetazlord. You post questions on this forum thread about the need to correctly interpret John 3:3-7.

When people go outside of John 3:3-7 (for example regarding Baptism of desire), to fill out these teachings on Baptism, you cry “foul” for going outside theses verses.

Then when I asked you about the Old Testament Saints . . . . you (correctly) . . . go outside of John 3:3-7 to back it up.

I had no problem with you doing that.

But YOU seem to have a big problem with CATHOLICS going outside John 3:3-7 on this issue.

No, I don’t have a problem with going outside of John 3:3-7, nor am I calling “foul.” Again, the issue is the natural conclusion of if the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying that if a person is not baptized IN water, then they can’t get into Heaven. If that is the correct interpretation (& for the moment, let’s say that it is), then “how” do UNbaptized people get into Heaven, without being baptized IN water, & without contradicting the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism? That’s all I’m asking. Going to other verses doesn’t really help, because you still have the this same issue.

I suspect the reason WHY you can’t say what your personal interpretation of John 3:3-7 is, isn’t because you’d be “breaking forum rules”. After all, you could just say:

This is perfectly licit. People do that sort of thing all the time here. I’ve never seen a mod. get riled over something like that.
Or you might say:

Or whatever your beliefs are on John 3:3-7 that I am allegedly making assumptions about.

I would assume that those examples would suffice. But I hope you can appreciate that since you’re not a mod, that it would be safer for me to await a mod’s approval & precise wording before replying, just so there is no inadvertant accusation of proselytizing. Fair enough?

It seems to me, you don’t want to be held to the same standard you think you are holding Catholics to.

False assumption.

The reason WHY Catholics are NOT contradicting themselves has to do with the law of non-contradiction and differing senses.

So, are you saying Jesus, Who is God & can’t lie or contradicting Himself, can say that a person MUST be baptized IN water or they “cannot” enter Heaven, can then in the same breath allow someone who is NOT baptized IN water into Heaven? How does that match with the law of contradiction?

You call the Catholic teaching a “self-contradiction” but readily accept your own interpretation, because of your tradition.

Another false assumption. It wouldn’t be “my interpretation.” Rather, I would use OT Scripture to support these verses, & demonstrate that those OT verses would not create the contradiction posed by the assumption that the “water” refers to water baptism does. I would also demonstrate how these same OT verses not only back up the meaning of John 3:5, but are also further supported in other NT verses that are backed up by these same OT verses.

The sense that WE are commanded to be Baptized in, is a different sense than what the Lord Jesus can do (as I showed why already in CCC 1257).

But that still doesn’t address the issue that Jesus - being God - can’t contradict Himself (see above).

The Lord Jesus teaches us about the Baptism of desire that MAY (not must) occur

.

But Jesus stated that a person MUST be “born again/born of water & the Spirit.” Therefore, how could someone who is UNbaptized enter Heaven through baptism by desire, without contradicting Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE language in John 3:3-7? This is the issue not being addressed.

The reason you can’t see it, is because you only see one place where the Lord Jesus teaches authoritatively—the Scriptures. Then you are forced to use your own personal opinion to interpret these Scriptures. which then turns out to be your own ultimate “authority”.

Again, false assumption. Since we both agree that Scripture is God-breathed, then it can’t be wrong. Since it can’t be wrong, then how can Jesus say a person MUST be baptized in water, or they CAN’T get into Heaven…and then in the same breath allow UNbaptized people into Heaven?

 

[thetazlord]

Do you believe the following is possible?

On The great day of Judgment when all souls are gathered together. Those souls found worthy but unbaptised will then be baptised with water & the spirit then they will be able to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Remember that most believe that The Judgment will happen back here on earth.

That’s a fair question & statement. What exactly is the “Kingdom of God”? And does Scripture teach that people get baptized in water AFTER they die. I could be wrong, but I don’t think even the Catholic church teaches the latter. The “Kingdom of God” that Jesus is referring to in John 3, in context, is Heaven. At least this is what Cardinal Arinze believes it to be, since he interprets that verse that way:

“Unless one is baptized in water, he cannot enter the Kingdom of HEAVEN.” (see link in my OP for the source.)

As far as Judgment Day goes, Jesus makes it clear that when He separates the Sheep from the Goats, the “sheep” go into everlasting joy, while the “goats” go into everlasting punishment. Jesus gives no indication that the “goats” will have the option to get baptized in water at that time. In fact, the text makes it clear that at that time their eternal fate is sealed. Therefore, water baptism occurs BEFORE a person dies. I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that after a person dies, they can be baptized in water. That would completely go against everything they teach about water baptismal salvation while a person is alive.

 

[thetazlord]

But how can you possibly know this? Were you there, at the time of Jesus, hearing everything He said, probably in Aramaic, not Greek, seeing everything He did?

That’s irrelevant since Scripture is God-breathed, & the NT was written IN Greek, not Aramaic. And God-breathed, written, Greek NT Scripture states that “UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot”), & in John 3:7 (“must” be born again/born of water & the Spirit). So, since God-breathed Scripture can’t be wrong, & since the NT was written in Greek, not Aramaic. And “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then “how” can anyone not baptized in water get into Heaven without being baptized in water, without contradicting the interpretation that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, & without contradicting Jesus’ exclusive wording? This is what I’m asking.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

As far as Judgment Day goes, Jesus makes it clear that when He separates the Sheep from the Goats, the “sheep” go into everlasting joy, while the “goats” go into everlasting punishment. Jesus gives no indication that the “goats” will have the option to get baptized in water at that time. In fact, the text makes it clear that at that time their eternal fate is sealed. Therefore, water baptism occurs BEFORE a person dies. I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that after a person dies, they can be baptized in water. That would completely go against everything they teach about water baptismal salvation while a person is alive.

Jesus also gives no indication that they WON’T be baptised with water at the time.
Yes their eternal fate is sealed, I agree.
but if they are worthy they will be with his sheep will they not?
and you keep referring to baptism BEFORE a person dies.
Can you tell me where it states in scripture that the death spoken of is not the second death?

(you must love a good game of chess)

 

[thetazlord]

thetazlord;12606630:

No offense, but you’re making a lot of assumptions about me, without any evidence to back up those assumptions. And, again, if I get permission from a moderator, I’d be more than happy to answer your question. Until then, I must obey forum rules. Why do you wish for me to break them?

Oh, so because I asked you a question that you can’t answer, I’m suddenly a “troll”??? I guess any former Catholic, or other Protestant, who asks a question that you can’t answer without contradiction is a “troll” then? It would be more civil & honest if you just said, “you know, I never looked at it that way before, & to be honest, I really can’t give you an answer without contradicting that interpretation. I’ll have to find out & get back with you.” Yes, it is Christmas, so let’s show some Christian charity & Christlike behavior, & avoid the Red Herrings & name-calling. BTW, there are other Catholics here who are at least making the effort to answer back. So, do “they” have “nothing better to do” too? Or are they at least attempting to objectively answer my question, not engaging in name-calling?

 

[thetazlord]

The logical explanation is that God gives commands that He doesn’t expect us to obey if we’re ignorant of them or unable to carry them out, which is consistent with His infinite fairness, kindness, and mercy. But He also expects us to obey when we can, to do the best we can with what we’re given, which is consistent with his justice along with verses such as Luke 12:48 and the Parable of the Talents.

That response still doesn’t address the fact that Jesus used EXCLUSIVE words when explaining “how” to get into Heaven (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”). In fact, in Greek, “must” not only means “necessary,” but more specifically “required.”

BTW, Luke 12:48 is talking about the “level” of punishment (lashes) in Hell. It has nothing to do with the righteous. And the Parable of the Talents addresses 3 different types of slaves - the first two demonstrated their faith that they were genuine followers of their “Master” by obeying Him. The third slave refused to listen to His Master, & believe that what He said was true, which demonstrated he was not a genuine follower, which is why he was “cast out into outer darkness, where there is weeping & gnashing of teeth.” Neither example has anything to do with the issue of John 3:5, water baptism, & salvation, nor the issue brought up in the OP.

 

[thetazlord]

There could be another angle that one can look at.

John the Baptist baptize with water for repentance. Jesus ask the apostles on top of the baptism of water i.e. repentance to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Hence baptism requires repentance. To put it another way, in one’s mind, one must desire repentance, i.e. admit wrong doing and asking for forgiveness with an aim to avoid repetition of those sins, otherwise there is no genuine repentance. Where physical water is not available or there is no one to baptize you, especially in conditions where apostasy can mean death and one has to do it in secret and alone, I’d equate water baptism with the baptism of desire - desire for repentance as a first step.

As in John the Baptist and other OT prophets, their baptism was circumcision. I don’t recall John being baptized with water and I don’t think John will not see heaven. Jesus couldn’t have meant an absolute requirement of baptism by physical water as in the case of the good thief. In Acts 19:1-6. disciples of John the Baptist were already baptized with water but not the Holy Spirit. Paul later laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. So if Paul never chanced upon them, would these disciples have been saved since they would not have received the Holy Spirit? Or if they died before meeting the Apostles? I don’t think Jesus intended those baptized with water but not the HS will not see heaven either. To do so will mean John the Baptist has been lying to the public that those who repent will be saved and all the baptisms done by him would be invalid.

In another twist, in Acts 10:44-48. The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit prior to their baptism! Hence to interpret John 3:5 in silo fashion one would have to disregard other scriptural support for other means of salvation. The good thief wouldn’t be joining Jesus anytime soon and and Jesus would have been made a liar. John the Baptist did not save anyone with his water baptism.You are rendering a very absolute interpretation of water AND spirit but that would lead to conflicting results elsewhere. Hence the Church has wisely declared that salvation comes through different routes but she can prescribed the normative route to salvation. There are exceptions and exceptions will be handled by God such as invincible ignorance. God did not limit the number of ways that people can reach him. He can by divine fiat saves any that he chooses.

And finally do remember that Jesus has already given the binding/loosing authority to the apostles in anticipation that the Church he built on Peter could make executive decisions in his absence, (such as for those things not written in the Bible in detail John 21:25). A verse making a certain point does not necessarily negate a different point made in another verse. These are not in disagreement, only in emphasis suiting the situation of that chapter/verse. For example you would encounter verses where one is saved by :

A) Grace
B) Faith
C) Repentance
D) Baptism etc

These verses very often do not discuss other facets of salvation when viewed in isolation but which we know are true also. Therefore, your absolute viewpoint on John 3:5 must be considered together with other knowledge elsewhere in the Scriptures also. Not doing it will render other parts of Holy Scriptures false.

Keep in mind that John the Baptist wasn’t part of the Church. He was murdered before Pentecost, when the Church was established. Also, the OT weren’t saved by circumcision. God made it clear that circumcision was a “sign,” not a means of salvation. But since we’re talking about baptism, not circumcision, it’s really irrelevant. Plus, if you read John 3:5-7 in the Greek, Jesus “is” saying that being “born of water & the Spirit” is an “absolute requirement.” That’s what “except,” “cannot,” & “must” mean in Greek. Also, remember, I’m not the one making the case that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism. So, the examples you gave from Scripture where if someone wasn’t baptized, that wouldn’t automatically mean they wouldn’t end up in Heaven, isn’t an issue for me. But it is for someone who believes that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism (see the OP).

So, with that in mind, since Jesus is speaking exclusively - and He IS doing that since He uses EXCLUSIVE wording in John 3:5 (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”), then please explain - without contradicting Jesus’ exclusive wording, how a person can enter Heaven without being baptized in water, “assuming” that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism:

**“UNLESS one is born of water [baptized in water] & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“You MUST be born again (born of water & the Spirit)(baptized in water.” (John 3:7)**

 

[thetazlord]

Jesus also gives no indication that they WON’T be baptised with water at the time.
Yes their eternal fate is sealed, I agree.
but if they are worthy they will be with his sheep will they not?
and you keep referring to baptism BEFORE a person dies.
Can you tell me where it states in scripture that the death spoken of is not the second death?

(you must love a good game of chess)

When Jesus separates the Sheep from the Goats, many of the “goats” (as well as the “sheep”) will be dead. Are you saying that dead people can be baptized in water? If yes, please provide either Scripture or Catholic tradition to back this up. If yes, then what’s the point of being baptized in water now, if you have that option after you die? If an atheist rejects Christ & baptism when they are alive, once they stand before God when they are dead & have the “option” of being baptized or ending up in Hell, don’t you think they’d choose baptism over eternal Hellfire?

Also, how can a dead person’s eternal fate be “sealed,” yet still be “worthy” to be counted as “sheep”? I don’t get that logic.

The death I’m speaking of is that when a person dies, they can’t be baptized in water. That is one of the “what if’s” you are making that if a person dies & isn’t baptized, you asked.

And it’s not “cat & mouse.” I’m asking a very simple question, & some of your “what if” replies have no Scriptural, nor Catholic traditional, support. But I give you an “A” for creativity.

BTW, I do enjoy a good game of chess…but that’s not what I’m doing here. I’m asking a question that’s yet to be answered with a logical, non-contradictory, satisfying response.