Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord. You keep saying this (or some variant over and over) [bold mine] . . .

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?

Is not going to convince anybody here. And when you repeat it again it’s not going to convince either.

“ . . .then in the same breath allow someone” . . .

This is wrong thetazlord.

I already said NOT “in the same breath”.

I already said, you have to look elsewhere . . . just like YOU already did.

NOT . . . “the same breath.” Not John 3:3-7 OK?

(If you keep creating this straw-man, people will keep pointing it out)

If you think John 3:5 means to “accept Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” you will turn this . . .

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.

Into this . . .

NOT JOHN 3:5 (but rather a Phantom Verse) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one accepts Me into their heart as personal Lord and Savior, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Then you will have the same issues thelazlord.

Do you think the people of the Old Testament “accepted Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior”?

This is what I think you wished the verse said by your responses here thalazlord. . .

NOT JOHN 3:5 (another Phantom Verse) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to ME, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

If you think John 3:3-7 means no exceptions to whatever Jesus is saying here in John 3:3-7, then I will have to ask YOU the same question in the same way, putting the same constraints upon you.

And the correct answer for you to answer me with would be . . . that Jesus was discussing what WE are called to do—NOT what Jesus Himself MAY do.

You would (should) say Jesus isn’t contradicting Himself because there are other senses to the answer (that you must look elsewhere to find). You would say JESUS Himself makes for exceptions (not contradictions) elsewhere as in the case of the Old Testament Saints so this is already a clue to how He is using this.

And I would say, I can (and do) use the same principles. Jesus made exceptions (in a differing sense) elsewhere.

But you trying to say this is a self-contradiction for Catholics but not for Protestants (at least not for you), is unacceptable logic.

And for the last time your non-contradiction accusation doesn’t hold. And I already explained WHY it doesn’t hold (these are differing senses).

Law of Non-Contradiction (from Wikipedia here with bold and ul mine) In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time . . .

What Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants are saying concerning John 3:3-7, does NOT meet the criteria of “violating the law of non-contradiction”.

You also said:

No, I don’t have a problem with going outside of John 3:3-7, nor am I calling “foul.”

But I didn’t say you had a problem with going outside of John 3:3-7.

I said you had a problem with CATHOLICS going outside of John 3:3-7 but you had NO PROBLEM for YOU yourself to do so (as you already DID with the Old Testament Saints example I asked about).

You said:

I’d rather play it safe & be respectful, and wait for a moderator to give me permission on “how” specifically to answer this question.

That’s fine. Go ahead and wait.

But if you affirm John 3:3-7 and the rest of Scripture, and you affirm . . .

• If you affirm the Old Testament Saints (who didn’t accept Jesus into their hearts as “personal Lord and Savior”) went to Heaven, you will have the same issue.
• If you affirm little newborn babies who never committed the sin of disobedience like Adam sinned (sin of disobedience), yet who sadly pass away (with their original sin) MAY go to Heaven (again without “accepting Jesus into their hearts as “personal Lord and Savior”), you are still going to have the same problem.
• If you affirm profoundly mentally retarded people who never committed the sin of disobedience like Adam sinned (sin of disobedience), yet who sadly pass away (with their original sin), MAY go to Heaven (again without “accepting Jesus into their hearts as “personal Lord and Savior”), you are still going to have the same problem.

You are not going to be able to answer your own challenge thetazlord without using in some sense, a Catholic means (by looking elsewhere) to interpreting John 3:3-7 for exceptions and asserting this is NOT a self-contradiction.

You attempting to try to hold Catholics to this standard without doing so yourself is not going to work here.

 

[thetazlord]

If you think John 3:5 means to “accept Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” you will turn this . . .

Actually, I don’t. So, I don’t know “where” you got that assumption from. I would also agree with you that that “personal interpretation” would cause some of the same contradictions of Jesus allowing people from the OT into Heaven, since they didn’t “accept” Jesus Christ specifically. Of course, Jesus is the same “God” as the God of the OT, so it wouldn’t really even be an issue if they didn’t know Jesus’ name specifically, which is why Paul stated that Abraham was “credited” righteousness. Regardless, that’s not what the ‘water’ means anyways, nor do I believe that it does, even though you “assume” that’s what I think it means. Rather, the actual reason (which I’m still awaiting a mod to tell me “how” I should respond) would not create any contradiction between OT saints, the NT Church, babies who die (baptized or not), nor mentally-challenged individuals who die. But, until then we have to wait. And it still doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said the ONLY way to enter Heaven is to be “born of water & the Spirit.” So, if that’s true, then Jesus would be contradicting Himself (not “making exceptions”) by allowing UNbaptized people into Heaven. You & I can make “exceptions” to EXCLUSIVE statements we make, but we would be lying by making those “exceptions.” But we can do that, because we are sinful, human beings. God/Jesus can’t lie, therefore, He can’t say one thing (baptism only), but then say “well, except for this…” By Jesus making an “exception,” He would also be contradicting Himself, & thus lying, which Jesus can’t lie, because Jesus is God, & God can’t lie. But that is what you are saying if you believe Jesus can say one thing (baptism only), but then say people can enter Heaven without water baptism.

I’m sorry you can’t see that the “contradictory accusation” does indeed “hold.” But I think that’s because you’re not really seeing the dilemma. So, the Law of Non-Contradiction indeed holds for the interpretation of ‘water’ to refer to the waters of baptism.

You are not going to be able to answer your own challenge thetazlord without using in some sense, a Catholic means (by looking elsewhere) to interpreting John 3:3-7 for exceptions and asserting this is NOT a self-contradiction.

You attempting to try to hold Catholics to this standard without doing so yourself is not going to work here.

Once I’m given permission on “how” to address this, yes I will, because Scripture will support Scripture, without contradiction. Until then, we both have to wait.

 

[fhansen]

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.

This is all irrelevant-you just thoroughly succeeded in begging the question. The NT is simply not a catechism. God did not say, “Now I’ll set down the faith in such a clear and precise and exhaustive manner that no confusion will ever be possible among sincere men of good will and sound minds”. The NT-and the Old-consist of a compilation of various writings by men or their aids-inspired by the experiences they received a a result of being touched by God in one way or another, most powerfully by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The writings are varied, including eye witness accounts of the teachings and deeds of Jesus-just the highlights apparently-eye witness accounts of some of the experiences of the apostles, as well as letters of exhortation, encouragement, admonishment, warning, clarification, prophecy, etc, to the followers. The bible was never intended to be a source that a person could pick up, read, and then arrive at full discernment of the will of God for man. Apart from the Church that God established for that very purpose, the Church which possessed and proclaimed the faith before a word of the NT was written, the Church whose members penned the NT, everything else is just guesswork, with sincere men of good will and sound minds-and PhDs in all fields of theology-sincerely and roundly disagreeing on the meaning of Scripture.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

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.

Firstly, I never said, hinted or suggested that you were playing a game of cat and mouse. But I found it interesting that you pulled that phrase out.

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.

I have not professed that I am relying on Scriptural, or Catholic, support.
I clearly stated TO YOU early on in the thread that.

I should point out that this is just my opinion, I am not brilliantly versed in scripture. etc…

I am not trying to trap you, I thought I was helping by asking different (what if questions) to help you find an answer. But now that you are saying that you have the answer but can’t show us for fear of being banned by the Catholics that you turned away from anyway, I find rather strange.
You stated that you are not playing cat and mouse. well let’s look at your history here.
An ex catholic joining a Catholic site to ask questions that he already has answers to.
When in an answer I mentioned the Kingdom of God you respond

What exactly is the “Kingdom of God”?

but you had already used the identical term in response to my earlier question and then again in a later one. So If I say the Kingdom of God you act all aloof yet you use the identical words twice, showing quite clearly that whatever is said, you will in fact Cat and Mouse the question and answer.

Purgatory doesn’t really solve the problem either, because Jesus states that “UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.”

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.

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.

But your question may not be logical and it may be contradictory to our belief which is always satisfactory to us and obviously not satisfactory to protestants. But I have left the original question and we should get back to it.

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

My uneducated, untrained non-Scriptural but 100% trust in my ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH answer to your question is that every single soul faces two judgments General(final) and Particular.
I Hereby claim without scriptural or traditional catholic support that at one millisecond before death snatches us away, The lord delivers the particular judgement and offers everyone found worthy the sacrament of Baptism. THAT’S RIGHT!!! A real water Baptism here on earth before each soul dies. Delivered by the Lord in union with the protestant fixation on non contradictory earthly water Baptism.
Amen.

 

[fasolislithuan]

This post is the perfect example why “Sola Scriptura” and “private interpretation” don’t work. If anyone of us analyze the text in isolation we can deduce a lot of different explanations about John 3. That’s the result of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation: a caothic mosaic of different doctrines.

An authoritative interpretation is not only necessary but vital. You can deduce what you want about any verse of the Bible but at the end of the day you need to resort to competent authority to discern the truth. But that authority have to be not only competent but infallible.

 

[ericc]

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.

Well, Nicodemus was also before Pentecost. Pentecost or when the Church was built is not relevant to the verse. You just avoided the problem of answering the question whether baptism by John is effective or not. John baptized with water but not with the Holy Spirit. Are his baptisms valid? Are his disciples saved since it is lacking the 2nd ingredient in John 3:5-7?

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).

Catholics are not saying that Water and Spirit baptism is the one and only way to salvation. So it is now
a) The thief wasn’t baptized with water but Jesus promised him heaven/paradise. vs
(b) John 3:5-7. vs
(c) divine fiat, God can predestine the elect to heaven. vs
(d) invincible ignorance declared by the authority of the Church.

So is all the above correct or just one of the above? We think it is all. How can it all be correct? I don’t know the HOW but I know all these are God’s words or bound by God’s authority. So none of them can be false. So either it is a mystery or we misunderstood something. I do not know whether baptism by water is meant by physical water, or waters of desire or waters of repentance in cases where physical water is not available to be used. There is no definition of water baptism given. One can suppose a range of possibilities. I do not know the HOW, but we know the INTENT of a, b, c,d above are all true. You can not deny them. So knowing that all of them to be true, you will need to reconcile how can it be?

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)

If you want to be correct, you have to be correct on ALL counts, not only your favourite verse. So let us look at possible HOW can all four be correct. One way is for all on the way to heaven receiving a baptism shower bath before stepping foot into heaven and/or the Holy Spirit breathing on them. John 3:5-7 is silent on how/when/where and there is nothing to suggest that God doesn’t have other ways to effect it. There is no necessity to be fixated on how God does things. After all he is all knowing, all truth and all powerful. It is sufficient to know he has given statements of his intent. We just need to cooperate with him, he will fix the details.

 

[Xeyed818]

I had a question about John 3:5 & the “water” Jesus is referring to:

"Unless one is born of water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

When I was being raised Catholic, I was taught that the water refers to the waters of baptism, which means that John 3:5 could just as easily be read:

"Unless one is baptized in water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all, & remember the reason for the season - JESUS!

God bless,
thetazlord

While many I’ve read feel that the “water” is water as in ‘holy’ amniotic fluid - I couldn’t figure out why Jesus would have felt it necessary to stipulate that.

That is, until I began noticing articles on ‘artificial wombs’. Perhaps ‘science sans God’ will take us to actual ‘unnatural births’, and Jesus was forewarning that beings born in this way will not be eligible for Salvation?

I’ve also read where this ‘water’ refers to ‘drinking from your own cistern’. However, if that was the case, it seems more likely that Grace would have to occur first - else everyone who ‘drank from their own cistern’ would immediately fulfill the first requirement?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_therapy

A verse in Proverbs (Proverbs 5:15) advises: “Drink waters from thy own cistern, flowing water from thy own well.”

I keep an eye out for other possibilities because the condition of ritual water baptism prior to Salvation just doesn’t seem wholly plausible, to me, either. Dunno.

Pamela

 

[Cathoholic]

When my Baptist minister mentors couldn’t make their point, they would just keep repeating their erroneous traditions over and over and/or louder and louder at Sunday School or wherever.

thetazlord. You repeating over and over, “the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 is a self-contradiction” isn’t going to do it.

You underlining more words isn’t going to do it either.

You arguments are just not persuasive.

I already showed (here) why your claims of Catholic self-contradiction are bogus.

---

Your routine about awaiting moderator permission before you can tell us what you think the real mysterious meaning of what John 3:5 “really means” in and of itself should tell you something.

• It should tell you that you can’t quote and believe the Scriptures for what they say. (And that should tell you something too).
• It should tell you that you couldn’t quote 2000 years of ancient Christian Church Fathers in an unbroken line teaching the same thing as you on this point.
• It should tell you that your theological position is an invention.
• It should tell you that your theological position on Baptism and John 3:3-7 is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God. Traditions of men like the “Zwickau prophets” or “the Swiss Brethren” from the 1500’s (as I said in post 48 here).

---

You positing that you have to keep your interpretation secret for now for fear of moderator retribution is absolutely wrong.

I think you should have much more fear of moderator intervention for asking a question . . . .

(. . . “I was taught that the water (In John 3) refers to the waters of baptism. . . . I was also taught those who didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized, but who would had the desire, . . . could enter Heaven, like those “baptized by desire”. . . . My question is if these people can get into Heaven without being baptized in water, then wouldn’t that contradict the belief that the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism?)

. . . . then having your question answered multiple times (showing you why all your traditions are wrong), and subtly correcting your mis-statement of Catholic teaching by showing you CCC 1257. . . . .

. . . . .Then you just keep asking the same question over and over again.

THAT’S what you ought to fear moderator admonition for.

---

You feign that the “real meaning” of John 3:5 would be rejected by moderators, because . . . (you know what I am going to say) . . . because you cannot give a verse or a historical pedigree to back up your tradition.

Ironically you keep citing what is REALLY THERE in John 3:3-7 to talk of the Catholic position (and in THAT citation, you are correct. The Catholics DO believe the Bible for what it says–they DO take it literally–they DO believe Sacred Scripture for what it says).

And this complaint of “if the moderators” allow me to articulate my position" isn’t going to matter. Why?

Because your position COULD be “being born of water and the Spirit REALLY means give me 10 push-ups and 15 sit-ups” (I am not saying that IS your position—I’m just showing the principles involved here) . . . .

. . . . and as soon as you articulate whatever this mysterious interpretation of yours is concerning John 3:3-7, I am going to point out that the Old Testament Saints, infants, and profoundly retarded people DIDN’T do what ever you are going to invent about John 3:3-7.

I am also going to point out the absence of Christian Tradition for your invention (for if you come up with anything less, than the Catholic position on this, there will be no 2000 year Tradition).

---

I think you have to keep your interpretation of John 3:3-7 a secret because you know once you articulate it, I and others will (using your own exact words to condemn your theological position) ask you the same questions only inserting your “mystery interpretation” directly into John 3:3-7.

It isn’t going to matter what your interpretation is, thetazlord, unless you REALLY just BELIEVE the verses (John 3:3-7) for what they say—like Catholics do.

But I suspect that your anti-physical matter bias (a bias which leads some to have anti-Incarnational bias) isn’t going to let you do that (affirm the Catholic position).

John 5:39-40, 45-47 concerns other issues, but the principle could be applied secondarily here. Your own position condemns what you are trying to say. It is YOUR theological position that is a self-contradiction, not the Church’s authoritative theological teachings.

JOHN 5:39-40, 45-47 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. . . . .45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

This post is the perfect example why “Sola Scriptura” and “private interpretation” don’t work. If anyone of us analyze the text in isolation we can deduce a lot of different explanations about John 3. That’s the result of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation: a caothic mosaic of different doctrines.

An authoritative interpretation is not only necessary but vital. You can deduce what you want about any verse of the Bible but at the end of the day you need to resort to competent authority to discern the truth. But that authority have to be not only competent but infallible.

Did you mean “this post” or were you talking about the complete thread?

 

[fasolislithuan]

Did you mean “this post” or were you talking about the complete thread?

Sorry, I mean “this thread”. Any speculation about the meaning of John 3 ex Magisterium of the Catholic Church is sterile. I don’t know what is the exact purpose of thetazlord, but if he pretends to refute the catholic interpretation he should do it without tricks and with frankness. He is to much on the defensive, perhaps because he knows the colossal task to refute a solid position with 2000 years of support in apostolic Tradition. But catholic doctrine isn’t only solid, essentially is infallible. By that his effort is something inevitably doomed to fail. Perhaps, for that reason he, scared, avoids to expound his mysterious (and needles to say refutable) position.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

Sorry, I mean “this thread”.

Quite alright my friend,

This Thread is the perfect example why “Sola Scriptura” and “private interpretation” don’t work. If anyone of us analyse the text in isolation we can deduce a lot of different explanations.

I agree entirely. I have a neighbour who believes that he can use any small part of scripture to prove that whatever he wants to do in life is biblically sound. He then starts to drone out his Sola Scriptura Mantra. That was until I told him that I would be around at his house that night to ransack his property.
He looked a little shocked, so I explained that if his mantra were correct then by my private interpretation of Matthew 12: 29 I have scriptural backing for such an act.
(Matthew 12: 29 Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house.)
So, I said to my neighbour that as long as I tie him up first, then I have the scriptural authority to rob him.
He no longer chants his mantra around me. (but we still get along):tiphat:

I think thetazlord still has a soft spot for his Catholic family, and though he jumped ship and is floating with the flotsam and jetsam whilst throwing stones at the Barque of Peter,
It might have more to do with the fact that he is feeling in his heart that he wants to come home to Holy Mother Church. I am more than happy to stand by all my life ready to scoop him up out of the shark infested waters and welcome him home in my unscriptural and undereducated way. “That reminds me, I need to get myself a fatted calf”. I hope he likes BBQ.:hug3:

Pete

 

[Cathoholic]

JOHN 3:3-5 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. **

---

Xeyed818.

You said:

QUOTE:
While many I’ve read feel that the “water” is water as in ‘holy’ amniotic fluid . . .

I think you are correct in stating that is what they “feel”.

But being “born the first time” is what includes amniotic fluid.

Being “born AGAIN” does not mean “amniotic fluid” (that was being born the first time).

Being “born again” or “born from above” or “born anew” DOES mean water and the Spirit.

So being “born again” is a “new” event that includes water and the Spirit, distinct from being born the first time.

To think “being born again” includes amniotic fluid makes the same essential error Nicodemus made—thinking of this event as a mere “natural” occurrence instead of a “supernatural” event.

---

QUOTE:
A verse in Proverbs (Proverbs 5:15) advises: “Drink waters from thy own cistern, flowing water from thy own well.”

I keep an eye out for other possibilities . . . .

The “drinking water from your own well” (or cistern) directive in Proverbs 5, is a nice way to say stick with your wife. It is a euphemism.

Don’t take a mistress. Don’t drink from other “cisterns” (don’t drink from “springs scattered abroad”).

Stick with the “wife of your youth” (drink from your own well or cistern).

If you don’t stick with your own wife, you will die for lack of discipline. If you commit this great folly of running after “loose women” and not staying by the “wife of your youth”, you will be lost.

Let them (the waters of your cistern) be for yourself alone, and not for strangers (prostitutes etc.) with you.

That’s what Proverbs 5 is alluding to.

PROVERBS 5:1-8, 15-23 1 My son, be attentive to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding; 2 that you may keep discretion, and your lips may guard knowledge. 3 For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; 4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; 6 she does not take heed to the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it. 7 And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8 Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house; . . . . 15 **Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. **16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely hind, a graceful doe. Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love. 20 Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an adventuress? 21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he watches all his paths. 22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin. 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The “drinking water from your own well” here does not concern amniotic fluid.

---

QUOTE:
the condition of ritual water baptism prior to Salvation just doesn’t seem wholly plausible, to me, either. Dunno.

Baptism isn’t a mere ritual. That’s what people have taught many of us when we were younger, but they were wrong.

I’m sure if the blind man could have seen Jesus use mud and spittle to restore his eyesight, he would have thought this attempt at his sight restoration was “wholly implausible” and was mere “ritual” too. It takes faith to believe Jesus.

But Jesus is the one giving the grace that accompanies Baptism. That is what “supernaturalizes” this “ritual” to something so much more.

That’s WHY St. Peter can say “Baptism . . . .now saves you” (1st Peter 3:21).
That’s WHY Jesus can tell us to go make disciples of all nations. HOW do we do this Jesus? “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
That’s WHY St. Peter preaching at Pentecost can say “Repent and be Baptized . . and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 2:38).
That’s WHY there is 2000 years of this teaching not only among Catholics, but Eastern Orthodox as well.

---

I hope this all helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[fasolislithuan]

Quite alright my friend,

I agree entirely. I have a neighbour who believes that he can use any small part of scripture to prove that whatever he wants to do in life is biblically sound. He then starts to drone out his Sola Scriptura Mantra. That was until I told him that I would be around at his house that night to ransack his property.
He looked a little shocked, so I explained that if his mantra were correct then by my private interpretation of Matthew 12: 29 I have scriptural backing for such an act.
(Matthew 12: 29 Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house.)
So, I said to my neighbour that as long as I tie him up first, then I have the scriptural authority to rob him.
He no longer chants his mantra around me. (but we still get along):tiphat:

 

[Xeyed818]

Cathoholic;12609723]JOHN 3:3-5 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. **

Once someone pointed out the below reading, it just clicked, for me.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water AND the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Meaning (for me) - Born the 1st time of water/mother and AND the 2nd time, born anew, of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t see baptism in these verses.

((Sorry about the spacing where it looked like ‘water & cistern’ somehow went with amniotic fluid. ))

The “drinking water from your own well” (or cistern) directive in Proverbs 5, is a nice way to say stick with your wife. It is a euphemism.

To me, these verses definitely do not suggest ‘taking a wife of the world and staying with her’. Like Paul, he seems to be saying to stay far from ‘world women’ and stay with the wife of your youth (that is already in you). I do recall hearing females being spoken of as cisterns/wells before; however, most often…quite dry ones.

Others may certainly disagree, but I think that this may be why onanism and homosexuality is so additionally defiling to man - because it is defiling 'his Higher Self - the wife of his youth, within him" It those cases, it isn’t just a type of ‘spiritual adultery’ that occurs when a man does take an ‘outside wife’.

Prov. 5: 3 For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; 4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; 6 she does not take heed to the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it. 7 And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8 Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house;

Prov. 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well.

Interlinear: Prov. 5:15 – Drink you! Waters from cistern of you and ones flowing from midst of well of you.

Prov. 5:17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you.

Perhaps the indiscriminate giving away of one’s ‘spiritual vigor’ also connects to Jesus’ saying about, “if salt has lost its savour…”

Interlinear Prov. 5:9-10: 9 Lest you are giving to others splendor of you and years of you to cruel one. 10 Lest they are surfeiting/(filling?) alien ones vigor of you and grievous labor of you in house of foreign one.

18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely hind, a graceful doe. Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love. 20 Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an adventuress? 21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he watches all his paths. 22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin. 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

Does a sexually incontinent man shorten his own life because of it? Unless, of course, restoration of ‘Salt’ by the Holy Spirit? Curious verses in many ways.

---

QUOTE:
the condition of ritual water baptism prior to Salvation just doesn’t seem wholly plausible, to me, either. Dunno.

Baptism isn’t a mere ritual. That’s what people have taught many of us when we were younger, but they were wrong.

I’m sure if the blind man could have seen Jesus use mud and spittle to restore his eyesight, he would have thought this attempt at his sight restoration was “wholly implausible” and was mere “ritual” too. It takes faith to believe Jesus.

But Jesus is the one giving the grace that accompanies Baptism. That is what “supernaturalizes” this “ritual” to something so much more.

Ritual that produces no ‘effect’ is ‘preserving memory’, to me. (Not saying its a bad thing, just that it isn’t directly productive.)

When Jesus used external materials, the blind ‘saw’ - there was direct and immediate effect . I do not see a similar ‘outward effect’ from baptism alone. There are lots of stories on Christian programming attesting to ‘no lasting change’ in behavior - and being re-baptized (sometimes many times).

In AA, Grace was extended to me…was it because I was baptized as an infant? Does that mean that only those previously baptized will be extended the Hand of Grace? That all others are doomed to death by alcoholism, no matter how great their desire, and willingness, to be sober? Grace is for All, to me; Salvation, “…few there be that find it”.

Is there an ‘unseen extra layer of protection’ for those who** are** baptized? I don’t know. I certainly sinned greatly ‘under baptism’ but, perhaps, baptism afforded a longer delay in Judgment under the Law somehow, which gave me the needed time ‘to come to the end of my willful self’ - and Repent.

Best to All,

Pamela

 

[Cathoholic]

Xeyed818. You pointed out regarding “amniotic fluid” . . .

Meaning (for me) - Born the 1st time of water/mother and AND the 2nd time, born anew, of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t see baptism in these verses.

Then this (regarding John 3:3-7) . . .

“I just don’t see baptism in these verses.”

That is going to be between you and God Xeyed818, but baptism is what John 3:3-7 is referring to.

Concerning Proverbs 5:23, you asked:

PROVERBS 5:23 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

You asked:

Does a sexually incontinent man shorten his own life because of it?

He may. But more importantly he may have a spiritual death, just like Adam and Eve immediately had when they sinned.

The sin of Adam and Eve shortened both their lives (spiritually Adam and Eve immediately died AND physically Adam and Eve eventually died too associated with there sin).

Sin can shorten our lives too.

Baptism is the entrance ramp to the Christian life. It is the beginning of the Christian life.

You also pointed out (parenthetical addition mine) . . .

When Jesus used external materials, the blind ‘saw’ - there was direct and immediate effect . I do not see a similar ‘outward effect’ from baptism alone. There are lots of stories on Christian programming attesting to ‘no lasting change’ in behavior’ (in Baptized people) . . .

Again, Baptism is the entrance ramp to the Christian life. It is the beginning of the Christian life.

We have free will before and after the grace of Baptism.

In Baptism, we get grace from Christ to be sure. But we have to use the grace that Jesus gives us.

Just like Jesus warned the man who He cured by the Pool of Bethesda (a real place—I’ve been there—but also a “type” or figure of Baptism) saying; “pick up your pallet and walk”.

That guy had physical AND spiritual healing. The physical was obvious to you and I (but subtle enough to the man where Jesus had to “tell” him to pick up his pallet etc.).

But once this guy had the grace of Christ, could he go out and sin egregiously and have worse things befall him?

Could this guy who was cured by Jesus Himself, have gone out and had "‘no lasting change’ in behavior?"

Fortunately Jesus Himself tells us.

The answer is “Yes”. He could go out and have "‘no lasting change’ in behavior!"

This guy who was healed personally by Christ could go out and still have had ‘no lasting change’ in behavior. And Jesus warns this guy not to do that.

JOHN 5:5-9, 14 5 One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your pallet, and walk." 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked. Now that day was the sabbath. . . . . 14 Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.

Jesus warns this guy to not get healed by Jesus and still go out and have ‘no lasting change’ in behavior!

 

[thetazlord]

This is all irrelevant-you just thoroughly succeeded in begging the question. The NT is simply not a catechism. God did not say, “Now I’ll set down the faith in such a clear and precise and exhaustive manner that no confusion will ever be possible among sincere men of good will and sound minds”. The NT-and the Old-consist of a compilation of various writings by men or their aids-inspired by the experiences they received a a result of being touched by God in one way or another, most powerfully by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The writings are varied, including eye witness accounts of the teachings and deeds of Jesus-just the highlights apparently-eye witness accounts of some of the experiences of the apostles, as well as letters of exhortation, encouragement, admonishment, warning, clarification, prophecy, etc, to the followers. The bible was never intended to be a source that a person could pick up, read, and then arrive at full discernment of the will of God for man. Apart from the Church that God established for that very purpose, the Church which possessed and proclaimed the faith before a word of the NT was written, the Church whose members penned the NT, everything else is just guesswork, with sincere men of good will and sound minds-and PhDs in all fields of theology-sincerely and roundly disagreeing on the meaning of Scripture.

It’s irrelevant because regardless of “how” you believe Scripture was compiled together, the fact remains that ALL Scripture - including the NT - is God-breathed. Therefore, God-breathed Scripture can’t be wrong, because that would be like saying that God Himself is wrong, which is impossible & anti-scriptural.

So, since the God-breathed Scripture can’t be wrong, & Jesus says in God-breathed Scripture:

“UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God”
“You MUST be born again (born of water & the Spirit”

…then “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism & since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”), then ‘how’ can an UNbaptized person “enter the kingdom of God”? This is the question I have asked from the beginning that no one has been able to answer without contradicting the EXCLUSIVE language Jesus uses in God-breathed Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

My uneducated, untrained non-Scriptural but 100% trust in my ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH answer to your question is that every single soul faces two judgments General(final) and Particular.
I Hereby claim without scriptural or traditional catholic support that at one millisecond before death snatches us away, The lord delivers the particular judgement and offers everyone found worthy the sacrament of Baptism. THAT’S RIGHT!!! A real water Baptism here on earth before each soul dies. Delivered by the Lord in union with the protestant fixation on non contradictory earthly water Baptism.
Amen.

So, then are you saying that “one-millisecond” before a person dies Jesus comes & baptizes people - with water - who are “worthy”? And you’re admitting that this “belief” of yours is supported “without traditional catholic support”??? So, you’re going beyond what your own church even professes about water baptismal salvation? Beyond your own personal “belief,” & since this same “belief” is “without traditional catholic support,” what do you base this “belief” on, other than yourself?

 

[thetazlord]

This post is the perfect example why “Sola Scriptura” and “private interpretation” don’t work. If anyone of us analyze the text in isolation we can deduce a lot of different explanations about John 3. That’s the result of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation: a caothic mosaic of different doctrines.

An authoritative interpretation is not only necessary but vital. You can deduce what you want about any verse of the Bible but at the end of the day you need to resort to competent authority to discern the truth. But that authority have to be not only competent but infallible.

This thread has nothing to do with “sola scriptura.” This thread has to do with the fact that since Catholic & Protestants both believe that both the OT & the NT is Inspired (“God-breathed”), then it can’t be wrong. So, since we are in agreement with that fact, then since God-breathed Scripture states:

“UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God”
“You MUST be born again (born of water & the Spirit”

…and “if” the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then “how” does a person who is not baptized in water “enter the kingdom of God,” since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”). This is what I’m asking, which I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer that does not contradict the “belief” in the interpretation of the words of our Lord in John 3:5. “Sola scriptura” has nothing to do with it, & is irrelevant.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, Nicodemus was also before Pentecost. Pentecost or when the Church was built is not relevant to the verse. You just avoided the problem of answering the question whether baptism by John is effective or not. John baptized with water but not with the Holy Spirit. Are his baptisms valid? Are his disciples saved since it is lacking the 2nd ingredient in John 3:5-7?

So, was the UNbaptized thief on the cross that Jesus promised “Paradise/Heaven.” So, based on the “water” in John 3:5 referring to the water of baptism, how did “he” get into Heaven?

Catholics are not saying that Water and Spirit baptism is the one and only way to salvation. So it is now
a) The thief wasn’t baptized with water but Jesus promised him heaven/paradise. vs
(b) John 3:5-7. vs
(c) divine fiat, God can predestine the elect to heaven. vs
(d) invincible ignorance declared by the authority of the Church.

That’s not what I’m asking in the OP. What I asked was that since the “belief” that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE wording (“Unless,” “cannot,” & “must” in John 3:7) then “how” can UNbaptized people - like the UNbaptized thief - enter Heaven without being baptized in water, & without contradicting that interpretation that the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, as well as Jesus EXCLUSIVE words? This “exceptions” would contradict the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism:

“UNLESS one is born of water [baptized in water] & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God”
“You MUST be born again [baptized in water]”

So is all the above correct or just one of the above? We think it is all. How can it all be correct? I don’t know the HOW but I know all these are God’s words or bound by God’s authority. So none of them can be false. So either it is a mystery or we misunderstood something. I do not know whether baptism by water is meant by physical water, or waters of desire or waters of repentance in cases where physical water is not available to be used. There is no definition of water baptism given. One can suppose a range of possibilities. I do not know the HOW, but we know the INTENT of a, b, c,d above are all true. You can not deny them. So knowing that all of them to be true, you will need to reconcile how can it be?

If you read through what I wrote above, it should answer your question, if you’re understanding what I’m actually asking.

If you want to be correct, you have to be correct on ALL counts, not only your favourite verse. So let us look at possible HOW can all four be correct. One way is for all on the way to heaven receiving a baptism shower bath before stepping foot into heaven and/or the Holy Spirit breathing on them. John 3:5-7 is silent on how/when/where and there is nothing to suggest that God doesn’t have other ways to effect it. There is no necessity to be fixated on how God does things. After all he is all knowing, all truth and all powerful. It is sufficient to know he has given statements of his intent. We just need to cooperate with him, he will fix the details.

That’s a nice “theory,” but neither Scripture nor the Catholic church teaches that. Plus, Scripture, as well as the Catholic church, teaches that a person gets baptized while they are still alive - not after the die. Plus, water is a physical substance, when we die, our souls that are immaterial - not our bodies - enter Heaven. So, even “if” what you are saying could happen, how could a physical substance “baptize” & cleanse an immaterial soul? Sorry, but your “theory” is unfounded by nearly 2,000 years of Catholic “tradition” as well unscriptural. Plus, it doesn’t address the OP at all.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

This thread has nothing to do with “sola scriptura.” This thread has to do with the fact that since Catholic & Protestants both believe that both the OT & the NT is Inspired (“God-breathed”), then it can’t be wrong. So, since we are in agreement with that fact, then since God-breathed Scripture states:

“UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God”
“You MUST be born again (born of water & the Spirit”

…and “if” the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then “how” does a person who is not baptized in water “enter the kingdom of God,” since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”). This is what I’m asking, which I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer that does not contradict the “belief” in the interpretation of the words of our Lord in John 3:5. “Sola scriptura” has nothing to do with it, & is irrelevant.

Water is meant to symbolize death before being reborn in Christ through the Holy Spirit. For instance, an unbaptized martyr could be baptized by fire/blood through his real death for confessing faith Jesus Christ.

When people were baptized, they were dunked under water. They were symbolically drowned. This is because water represents the abyss. It symbolizes death. In order to be reborn, you have to die first. This is why in ancient christian iconography, baptism shows the water for baptism as this dark cavernous pit or abyss that looks like it is going to swallow the person. It is why Peter compares it to the Flood where Noah was saved through it (1 Pet. 3:20).

This is why Paul says:

“Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.”
Col 2:12

“For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.”
Rom 6:4

“Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?”
Rom 6:3

If you don’t die, you cant be reborn in Christ.