F
fbl9
Guest
Well taz are you still a man when you die, nope. Therefore your limitation has expired upon death of the body.And you can’t worm your way out cause Jesus said man specifically.
- Status
T
thetazlord
Guest
Again, this has nothing to do with “sola scriptura.” This has to do with being able to recognize an interpretative contradiction of a NT text. Since even that “one verse” (actually 2 - John 3:5; John 3:7) is God-breathed, then if that interpretation causes a theological & Biblical contradiction, then you have to question that interpretation, not the text itself. So, “if” the water refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying that water baptism is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom” of God. Therefore, those baptized by desire, of blood, who die, if they were not baptized in water & died, then based on the interpretation that the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then they too would not “enter the kingdom of Heaven” based on that interpretation. So, either the interpretation is correct & water baptism is “required” (John 3:7), or the interpretation is incorrect & people who are martyred for the faith, etc “can” & do “enter the kingdom of God.” But both “beliefs” can’t be true at the same time, because they contradict each other.
So, again, “how” can all these UNbaptized people “enter the kingdom of God,” “if” the interpretation of “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism? This is what I’ve been asking for seven pages now, & no one has given me a straightforward answer that doesn’t contradict the “water baptismal salvation” interpretation of John 3:5.
R
ready
Guest
If a person can’t be baptized with water, and they have baptism of desire or baptism of blood, they can be saved. Just because a person is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they have baptism of desire; some people who are invincibly ignorant have no baptism whatsoever and end up going to hell. God bless you.
T
thetazlord
Guest
No, I don’t “deny” that God can do all things. But what we have to understand, Scripturally, about God, there are things God “can’t do,” such as lie or speak a name above Himself, which Scripture even states. So, God can “do anything” that does not violate His character, which would include lying. So, since Jesus said that you MUST be born again/born of water & the Spirit, then He’s saying that is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, since Jesus is God, & God cannot like, then God/Jesus cannot allow those who are not “born again/born of water & the Spirit” to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, "if’ the water refers to the waters of baptism, then God/Jesus cannot let ANY UNbaptized people into Heaven, otherwise, God/Jesus would be lying, which would violate His character. So, please don’t accuse me of things that I don’t believe.
If this is true, then please show me from the Catechism or elsewhere where the Catholic church teaches that a person can be baptized IN WATER after death. This is what you were “originally” saying. Since I am no longer Catholic, I am not aware if this is something Catholicism teaches. If they do, please show me.
Why are you attacking me personally, and my church???
See above.
T
thetazlord
Guest
First, those verses from Peter states that water baptism is an “antitype” (which is what it means in Greek) which is an “earthly expression of a spiritual reality” or a “symbol” (as you put it) of some greater spiritual reality. See also Hebrews 9:24 where this same Greek word is used for “figures.” So, Peter isn’t saying the water baptism “saves” a person, but rather it’s an “antitype” or “symbol” or “figure” of what actually “saves” a person. Peter isn’t referring to water baptism as the “means” of salvation.
Second, even “if” that’s what Peter means, then Jesus would be saying in John 3:5 that water baptism is the ONLY means of salvation, not a “normative” means, since Jesus uses EXCLUSIVE language (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”). So, if that is true, then how can UNbaptized people, such as those baptized by desire, of blood, etc "enter the kingdom of God’ without being baptized in water?
R
ready
Guest
Those who have baptism of desire and of blood, though they are not baptized with water, are baptized, for they have a baptism of desire or a baptism of blood. Baptism of water, desire and blood is a three-fold baptism. God bless you.
T
thetazlord
Guest
So, you’re trusting the “opinion” of someone who lived NINETEEN CENTURIES after the Gospels were penned that ALL of the Gospels were “originally” written in Hebrew??? Even though all we have from the ECF’s is that Matthew (maybe) was originally written in Hebrew & then he later translated it into Greek - not the other Gospels. And even “if” this is true (which there is ZERO evidence for outside of Tresmontant’s “opinion”), the Greek NT would still be “Inspired” because the original Greek written Gospels were still written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John. Therefore, the John 3:5 in Greek is still Inspired. So, you are still left with the same question I had in my OP. Plus, even “if” it was originally in Hebrew, the same argument remains in the OP, just using the Hebrew, instead of the Greek. So, your argument is a moot point. And your comment about the Catholic church, that has nothing to do with my question, & irrelevant to what I’m asking.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The last minute conversion at the point of death is Baptism of Desire which is a long standing teaching of the Catholic Church.
So then we see that there is a sacramental baptism in this circumstance as well.
The following article of mine may help with this a bit.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
So then we see that there is a sacramental baptism in this circumstance as well.
The following article of mine may help with this a bit.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
T
thetazlord
Guest
AndrewW94, out of everyone who has replied, yours is undeniably the one that has given the most though. So, I commend you for that.
However, it still doesn’t address the fact that in John 3:7, Jesus states:"You MUST be born again."
Catholic & Protestants agree that “born again” & “born of water & the Spirit” refer to the same thing (John 3:3,5). Therefore, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying in John 3:7 that a person MUST be baptized in water, or he “cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Plus, there is no indication in the text during his conversation with Nicodemus that He’s referring to water baptism. Jesus doesn’t even bring it up. In fact, if you look through the NT, being “born again,” “born of God,” etc is never mentioned with water baptism, even once. So, if water baptism is what Jesus meant, then Jesus is saying a person MUST be baptized in water to enter Heaven, since the Greek word for “must” in John 3:7 means “required” nor “normative.”
So, I’ll give an “A-” for your attempt & well-thought out argument, but the “minus” for the fact that you didn’t take into consideration our Lord’s use of the word “must” in John 3:7.
Blessings to you!
T
thetazlord
Guest
First, I haven’t stated what “I think” the water refers to. Rather, I’m asking a question about “how” an unbaptized person can enter Heaven, based on the EXCLUSIVE words of our Savior in John 3:5,7. Second, having read everything you wrote, I understand the position of the Catholic church for “how” unbaptized people enter Heaven. But all that still doesn’t address that if the “water” refers to the waters of baptism in John 3:5, then Jesus is saying that water baptism is the ONLY way to enter Heaven, because Jesus uses EXCLUSIVE language (“unless,” “cannot,” "must’)(John 3:5,7). So, what I’m asking, which your post didn’t actually address, is that since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE wording “how” to enter Heaven, that if He’s referring to water baptism, then “how” can these UNbaptized people enter Heaven without being baptized in water. This is what I’m asking.
T
thetazlord
Guest
As a former Catholic, I understand what “baptism by desire” & “baptized of blood” mean. What I’m asking is that since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”) in John 3:5,7, then Jesus is saying THAT is the ONLY way to enter Heaven. So, “if” Jesus is referring to water baptism, then “how” can these UNbaptized people enter Heaven, without contradicting the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus in these verses? Do you understand my question?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
death. This is what you were “originally” saying. Since I am no longer Catholic, I am not aware if this is something Catholicism teaches. If they do, please show me.
I just answered this. No one is saying that it is a water baptism, but that it is a valid baptism, although…we certainly know that if God so chose He could baptize a person in their very tears.You will find that many of us are either converts or reverts from n-C communities and so we know very well what we were taught while among you.Why are you attacking me personally, and my church???
I personally feel that I was deceived by well intentioned people with Bibles, which is the only reason I have for excusing it all. because I too was ignorant of the faith as well as the Word of God and when that was corrected I came home to the Catholic faith. (See My Testimony)
G
Gorgias
Guest
I think I’d respond that the ‘problem’ you perceived is bound up in your particular interpretation of these verses.
John 3:5 reads, “ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος”. That is: “if one is not born out of water and Spirit”. There’s not, strictly speaking, an ‘unless’. And, there’s definitely not an ‘in’ (ἐν), but rather, an ‘out of’ or ‘out from and into’ (ἐξ).
The first time Jesus attempts to explain it to Nicodemus, He describes it as being “born from above”. The second time, when Nicodemus doesn’t understand immediately, Jesus re-phrases it as “out of water and Spirit.” Jesus’ words are identical, with the exception that He substitutes “out of water and Spirit” for “from above”:
John 3:3 Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν
John 3:5 Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος
From a Catholic perspective, the necessity is to have been “born from above.” (I like the way that David Filmer often puts it around here: we must be born from above by the grace that is normatively gained through baptism (my phrasing of his oft-repeated assertion).) The normative way of being “born from above” is the sacrament of baptism. However, God isn’t bound to this normative way, and can cause a “birth from above” as He wishes (after all, in v.8, Jesus affirms that “[t]he wind blows where it wills…; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit”). It isn’t a matter of Jesus ‘lying’ or the Catholic Church making a liar out of God and His word – rather, Jesus asserts that the necessity is ‘birth from above’, and the normative way He gives us to accomplish this is water baptism.
If it were the case that Jesus is ‘painting God in a corner’, then it would be Jesus who would be the liar, as He promised Paradise to the (unbaptized!) ‘Good Thief’ from the cross (Lk 23:43)!
More succinctly: I would say that Jesus’ words in John 3:3 and 3:5 are fulfilled in water baptism, rather than saying that Jesus is mandating only water baptism as the sole means through which this happens.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
be born again."AndrewW94, out of everyone who has replied, yours is undeniably the one that has given the most though. So, I commend you for that.
"You MUST
Catholic & Protestants agree that “born again” & “born of water & the Spirit” refer to the same thing (John 3:3,5). Therefore, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying in John 3:7 that a person MUST be baptized in water, or he “cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Plus, there is no indication in the text during his conversation with Nicodemus that He’s referring to water baptism. Jesus doesn’t even bring it up. In fact, if you look through the NT, being “born again,” “born of God,” etc is never mentioned with water baptism, even once. So, if water baptism is what Jesus meant, then Jesus is saying a person MUST be baptized in water to enter Heaven, since the Greek word for “must” in John 3:7 means “required” nor “normative.”
So, I’ll give an “A-” for your attempt & well-thought out argument, but the “minus” for the fact that you didn’t take into consideration our Lord’s use of the word “must” in John 3:7.
Blessings to you!Part of your problem here is that you are trying to argue this from a single passage of scripture when it needs to be dealt with within the context of the entire New Testament. knowing as I do the n-C love of St. Paul I especially suggest that you consider Acts 22:16.
I also would have to ask why so many n-Cs make so much of sharing the good news based upon the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20 when the clear command is to baptize as well as share the faith? Why would Christ have commanded it in this context if it wasn’t needed for salvation? That makes no sense…
T
thetazlord
Guest
I just answered this. No one is saying that it is a water baptism, but that it is a valid baptism, although…we certainly know that if God so chose He could baptize a person in their very tears.
You will find that many of us are either converts or reverts from n-C communities and so we know very well what we were taught while among you.
But that doesn’t address the question I originally posted in my OP. “If” the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & Jesus says you MUST be “born of water & the Spirit” or you “CANNOT enter the kingdom of God” then “how” can someone who had died who was not baptized in water “enter the kingdom of God”? How is “baptism by desire,” “baptized of blood,” etc a “valid baptism” is they were not baptized in water, since that is the interpretation of “water” in John 3:5. That interpretation would mean that water baptism would be the ONLY means of salvation, based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”), & therefore, these other “baptisms” would not be “valid.”
Also, I was told by another poster that if a person dies without being baptized in water, that they can be baptized in water, after death. I asked him “where” in the Catechism or other Catholic sources does it state this. Could you provide me a source, rather than just a “it could happen”?
So, this condones the slurs & slanderous language of the other poster towards me??? Let me ask you, & be truthful with me, if “I” had said the same thing to me, would you have responded as nonchalantly with him as you just did with me? I seriously doubt it. I probably would have received an infraction or been banned. So, why are the “rules” pertaining to the forum rules different for Catholics than for ex-catholics & other Protestants. I will check out your link, but I find it seriously troubling that Catholic posters can blatantly violate forum rules & get away with it, but non-catholics can’t, & can even receive an infraction or be banned for a much less serious offense - like quoting Scripture or an opinion if it contradicts official Catholic teaching. Sorry, but your nonchalant response was rather shocking, unsettling, & disappointing.
T
thetazlord
Guest
I agree with you that Jesus would be “lying” based on the fact that Jesus is using exclusive words. But that only applies “If” the water refers to the waters of baptism, & even Filmer’s response doesn’t really address the problem or my question in my OP.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Where we are here is that we agree completely with what Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is saying in that passage, but we disagree with the interpretation that you have expressed.
It’s all about context, and in this case the context of the whole New Testament disagrees with your interpretation. If that is the case then it seems clear that you might need to reassess your sources for teaching and perhaps reconsider remaining outside the Catholic Church.
T
thetazlord
Guest
Just to let you know, I’m a former Catholic, so I’m aware of all those passages, like Acts 22:16, etc. But upon examining those texts - especially in the original Greek - & comparing them to the surrounding passages, & cross-referencing them with other Scripture verses & passages, they don’t actually support water baptismal salvation. But the reason I am focusing my question on John 3:5 is because even a “single” passage (actually 2 passages - John 3:5,7), is God-breathed Scripture. Therefore, since Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language in these two passages (“unless,” “cannot,” “must”) then if Jesus is saying that the water refers to the waters of baptism, as do passages like Acts 22:16), then Jesus - and these other passages as well - are saying that water baptism in the ONLY way to "enter the kingdom of God’ based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words. So, my question is "how’ do those who are not baptized in water “enter the kingdom of God” based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words? This is what I keep asking that no one is answering without contradicting the interpretation of Jesus’ words to refer to the waters of baptism.
I am also awaiting a reply from a moderator to allow me to answer direct requests from posters who are asking me to explain my “opinion” about what the “water” actually refers to, based on Scripture. So far, I have not received a response, & now I’m getting ridicule & slurs & slanderous remarks from “some” posters, because they “think” I’m refusing to answer their questions, rather than trying to be obedient to forum rules.
Are you a moderator? Can “you” give me permission to respond with “my opinion” even if it contradicts “official Catholic beliefs” of what the “water” refers to, even if I provide relevant Scripture to back it up? If not, “who” can give me this permission? Who should I ask? I’ve already inquired “Ask An Apologist,” but so far, no response.
T
thetazlord
Guest
Then please explain, based on Jesus EXCLUSIVE words (“unless,” “cannot,” “must”) how an unbaptized person can “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized in water & without contradicting the “interpretation” of our Savior’s words to refer to the waters of baptism. Because I’d really appreciate an answer that doesn’t contradict them.
Also, keep in mind, that in Greek, “must” used in John 3:5 means “required” not “normative.”
C
Church_Militant
Guest
baptized in water “enter the kingdom of God”? How is “baptism by desire,” “baptized of blood,” etc a “valid baptism” is they were not baptized in water, since that is the interpretation of “water” in John 3:5. That interpretation would mean that water baptism would be the ONLY means of salvation, based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”), & therefore, these other “baptisms” would not be “valid.”
Also, I was told by another poster that if a person dies without being baptized in water, that they can be baptized in water, after death. I asked him “where” in the Catechism or other Catholic sources does it state this. Could you provide me a source, rather than just a “it could happen”?Why would you need that since we know that there is nothing in either Catholic teaching or in Scripture that says it cannot be. After all “With God all things are possible.”
had said the same thing to me, would you have responded as nonchalantly with him as you just did with me? I seriously doubt it. I probably would have received an infraction or been banned. So, why are the “rules” pertaining to the forum rules different for Catholics than for ex-catholics & other Protestants.They’re not, but what you take as slander etc seems to be a very subjective interpretation. Just because a Catholic has been very frank with you does not mean what you seem to think offensive.
Sadly, it cuts both ways and we are routinely accosted here by n-Cs who not only argue against our faith, but deride it and openly seek to proselytize us away. in reading through this thread, I have seen nothing that violates the rules and guidelines found at this link .
Oh for Pete’s sake…I will check out your link, but I find it seriously troubling that Catholic posters can blatantly violate forum rules & get away with it, but non-catholics can’t, & can even receive an infraction or be banned for a much less serious offense - like quoting Scripture or an opinion if it contradicts official Catholic teaching. Sorry, but your nonchalant response was rather shocking, unsettling, & disappointing.
it seems to me that you are just looking for offense whether one is intended or not.If you find a post that actually breaks a rule then report it and cite the rule.
However, I suggest that you drop comments as to infractions and bans since that definitely does violate the rules which plainly state,“Judgments by the Moderators can be discussed with the Moderators via private messaging but not on the board itself. Decisions of the Moderators may be appealed to the Administrator.”
- Status