Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[thetazlord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus: “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” [CCC #1260].

First, show me - in Scripture - that anything other than Scripture states is God-breathed (Inspired). Please show me that verse.

Second, this thread is not about “Sola Scriptura,” so I don’t know why so many people are trying to chance it into one. So, let’s all please stay on the topic of the OP - the meaning of John 3:5, water baptism, & salvation. I also wondered why you didn’t comment on my explanation, but took this rabbit trail?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12619280&postcount=159

 

[stewstew03]

No, I’m not calling him a heretic. However, the writings of ECF’s are not Inspired (God-breathed). Only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

But how do you know 2 Timothy is theopneustos?

herefore, anybody’s opinions (including mine, yours, & his) needs to be compared TO Scripture, since that’s what Scripture commands (Acts 17:11).

But how will we ever know Truth (with a capital ‘T’)?

And not all ECF’s agreed that water baptism is the meaning of the “water” in John 3:5. So, saying that he “agrees with the majority” doesn’t automatically mean that he is understanding that Scripture correctly. For example, if he believes that baptism by desire is a legitimate means of salvation and believes that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, there’s a problem. Because in John 3:5, Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE words when He talks about the “water” & Spirit that is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of God.

This comment makes it clear that you do not understand Catholic teaching. It is not you are saved by (a) water, or (b) Spirit. It is both. Water and Spirit are clearly linked. And those who are not immersed in water may still be saved according to their responses to the Holy Spirit.

I’ve mentioned this several times, but please read a copy of the Catechism before attacking Church teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

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

But what is your answer to this dilemma?

Does Christ actually mean that you can’t get to heaven unless you eat his flesh?

And it is actually on the topic of this thread, since we are talking about soteriology.

 

[PRmerger]

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

So what do you believe Jesus’ reference to “water” means?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Very good point.

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

-Tim-

Egg-zactly.

There are many here who stand in the tradition of Apollos–full of zeal for the Lord, but in need of much correction regarding their knowledge of the Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

First, show me - in Scripture - that anything other than Scripture states is God-breathed (Inspired). Please show me that verse.

Well, Adam was God-breathed. See Genesis 2:7.

And the Apostles were God-breathed. See John 20:22.

So clearly there are things OTHER THAN Scripture–men, in fact–which are God-breathed.

Also, remember that St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. Everything he preached could not have been contained to writ. But surely that which he preached was theopneustos, yes?

 

[stewstew03]

Catholics also believe that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism.

Correct.

But if that is true, then that would mean that a person “must” be baptized in water or they “cannot” enter the kingdom of God. That would mean UNbaptized people, like UNbaptized martyrs & UNbaptized people who “desire” baptism, but die before they get the chance would not end up in Heaven.

No. Again, you are prooftexting. Read the WHOLE bible, not just John 3:5. Have you read Luke 23:42-43? How about Acts 10:44-48?

That’s not what my explanation is saying.

***Your ***explanation? Well, that’s the problem. When I read ***your ***explanation, I can’t find it anywhere in Scripture. I can’t find a verse that says “John 3:5 does not refer to the sacrament of baptism.” Help me out here.

So, it’s really not the same, because this explanation - supported by Scripture - agrees with the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus that you “must” be born again & “unless” one is “born of water & the Spirit (receives the ‘outpouring’ of the Holy Spirit’) he “cannot” enter the kingdom of God.”

Okay - remember how I’ve been mentioning the Catechism…? The Church teaches this but does not use all caps – although the Church does “repeatedly” use “quotation marks.”

No ritualistic act - on the part of the person - of washing of physical water is involved.

Whoa - wait a minute. Are you saying that the Apostles did not baptize anyone? Are you saying that John the Baptist was doing it wrong?

As a former Catholic, I’ve read through Acts & Peter’s epistles, so I have read those verses & what the apostles believed about water. So, obviously, I don’t agree that those verses in Acts, Peter’s epistles, & Paul’s epistles support water baptismal salvation. Because if they did, then we’re back to my question in my OP, “if” that is true, then the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism.

So…let me get this straight. You’re saying that IF scripture supported the sacrament of baptism, then the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism. Good grief…I’m going to recommend you meditate on this particular comment for a moment…

And “if” that is true, then Jesus is using EXCLUSIVE language (“unless,” “cannot,” & “must” in John 3:7), which means that Jesus would be saying that being baptized in water is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.”

Okay, sure – if our bibles only contained one chapter from the New Testament – John 3 – then, yes, you would be correct. But you cannot ignore the rest of scripture – or, if you do, you do so at your own peril.

However, the understanding that the “water” refers to the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit”

Yes - water and Spirit are linked - as I’ve said before.

Jesus would be saying EVERYBODY “must” receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (“born of water & the Spirit”) or he “cannot enter the kingdom of God.”)

Bingo. This is Catholic teaching.

Do you see the difference?

Do you understand that water and Spirit are linked?

God bless!

You as well.

 

[stewstew03]

First, show me - in Scripture - that anything other than Scripture states is God-breathed (Inspired). Please show me that verse.

What are you asking? Are you asking if the word theopneustos is used elsewhere? Or are you asking if anything other than Scripture is divinely inspired?

Second, this thread is not about “Sola Scriptura,” so I don’t know why so many people are trying to chance it into one. So, let’s all please stay on the topic of the OP - the meaning of John 3:5, water baptism, & salvation. I also wondered why you didn’t comment on my explanation, but took this rabbit trail?

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is fair game any time someone brings his (or her) own private interpretation into the discussion and presents that interpretation as Truth.

 

[Abu]

thetazlord #170
First, show me - in Scripture - that anything other than Scripture states is God-breathed (Inspired). Please show me that verse.

Show me which Church declared what books make up the inspired Word of God, without which no one would know. The reality is that without Her teaching, Protestants do not even know of the fact of Purgatory and its cleansing for heaven.

The only reason that anyone knows that Sacred Scripture is “inspired” is precisely because Christ’s own Catholic Church has declared them to be so. Only She has the authority to interpret what She has given the world through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the reality of salvation is possible for some non-baptised by water is taught by the same Church Christ founded – She who declared what are the Sacred Scriptures.

No one would have that knowledge apart from the fact that Christ founded His Church on St Peter and the Twelve and those Catholics wrote the New Testament and His Church declared 73 books to be the Sacred Scriptures, with 46 books in the O.T., and 27 books in the N.T. – no more, no less.

St Paul’s epistles stress that there are “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

The Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah was asked by Philip who had been moved by the Holy Spirit – “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, ‘How can I unless some man show me?’ And he asked Philip to come and sit with him.” [Acts 8:30-31].

 

[Cathoholic]

JOHN 3:1-5 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
.
thetazlord.

You keep asking (regarding John 3:5):

.

the question is what does the “water” refer to

.
And I keep telling you, it refers to water. It refers to just what it says.

And now the question I have had for you (but you keep evading) is “WHO is that commandment is given to?”

I have asked you here and I asked you here.
. 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.

Now I will ask the question again:

WHO is the “TO YOU” that Jesus is giving this command to here in John 3:5?

A. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Nicodemus (who represents mankind).
B. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself.
C. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself AND Nicodemus.
D. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to nobody.

What is the answer thetazlord? A, B, C, or D?

Once you answer this question of mine, you will be answering the question of yours too. But so far you are ignoring it.

 

[Sandraaustin]

Coincidentally, the entire text of the answer to “Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?” can be found at
gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html

Not that I’m recommending anyone go there, just saying, the entire answer and “biblical” explanation is there for anyone to find. Or use for debating with Catholics. Ironic.

 

[ready]

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

I’ll check the *Catena Aurea *Commentary to see if I can find you the Church’s explanation of Jesus’ words. This should convince you that there is no contradiction between our Lord’s words and the Church’s understanding of them. However, I’ll have to do this for you tomorrow, okay? God bless you.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi, All ~

Below is the interlinear text using the ISA program.

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

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

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

Interlinear

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

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

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

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

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

Best to All,

Pamela

Why? Why aren’t you asking why Christ Himself commanded that we baptize in Matthew 28. why would He have done that if it wasn’t important?

What else did He tells us? John 14:15 ***"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. "

---

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord.

You said (bold and ul mine):

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

.

What verse says “only” thetazlord?

What verse are you alluding to? You quoted 2nd Timothy 3:16 but THAT doesn’t have “ONLY” in it. So what verse are you talking about?

If you affirm (correctly) that Scripture is inspired, why don’t you just believe John 3:5 for what it says? (And not add conditions to it?)

Please consider answering my question here, or here. I think this would be helpful for you to see what you are missing concerning John 3:5.

 

[thetazlord]

But how do you know 2 Timothy is theopneustos?

Because after Paul states that all Scripture is God-breathed, Peter goes onto say that all of Paul’s epistles are Scripture. Therefore, since all Paul’s epistles are Scripture, & since all Scripture is God-breathed, then 2 Timothy - which is one of Paul’s epistles - is God-breathed, or theopneustos. In fact, I’ve brought this up, numerous times.

But how will we ever know Truth (with a capital ‘T’)?

In John 17:17, which is also God-breathed Scripture, Jesus Himself states, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” The Bible - OT & NT - is the Inspired Word of God. Therefore, it Scripture is Truth.

This comment makes it clear that you do not understand Catholic teaching. It is not you are saved by (a) water, or (b) Spirit. It is both. Water and Spirit are clearly linked. And those who are not immersed in water may still be saved according to their responses to the Holy Spirit.

I’ve mentioned this several times, but please read a copy of the Catechism before attacking Church teaching.

First, I’m not “attacking” Catholic teaching. Several people asked for my opinion, so I answered them after receiving godly council. So, don’t even go there. :nope:

Second, I understand Catholic teaching, including that “born of water & the Spirit” is one “birth.” But what you’re still not “getting,” is that “if” this “one-birth” occurs at the moment of baptism & the Holy Spirit descends on a person, then in John 3:5, Jesus would be saying that this ONLY happens at the moment of water baptism, BECAUSE of the EXCLUSIVE used by Jesus in John 3:5,7 (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must.”) So, I’m understanding what you’re saying, but the interpretation of that verse contradicts UNbaptized people getting into Heaven, like baptized by desire, of blood, etc. Not so with the “water” referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which is backed up by OLD Testament Scripture that I mentioned in my explanation.

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord.

You said (bold and ul mine):

What verse says “only” thetazlord?

What verse are you alluding to? You quoted 2nd Timothy 3:16 but THAT doesn’t have “ONLY” in it. So what verse are you talking about?

That’s not what I said. I said that Scripture only states that Scripture is Inspired. So, since you don’t believe this, then please show me where Scripture says that anything, other than Scripture, is Inspired. Since you are asserting that things other than Scripture is Inspired, then since you are the one making the assertion - not me - then the burden of proof is on you not me. I don’t have to prove a negative. So, please show me this verse.

If you affirm (correctly) that Scripture is inspired, why don’t you just believe John 3:5 for what it says? (And not add conditions to it?)

Because I’m not the one “adding conditions” to John 3:5. John 3:5 says nothing about water baptism, nor does anything during Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus even allude to it, let alone “says” anything about baptism. Again, in the OT when Scripture uses “water” & “Spirit” together, it figuratively refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism.

 

[thetazlord]

Please consider answering my question here, or here. I think this would be helpful for you to see what you are missing concerning John 3:5.

I have already - numerous times. Although Jesus is “addressing” Nicodemus, Jesus actually says “Unless one is born of water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” & then later “You must be born again.”

So, the “one” & “you” Jesus is referring to isn’t just Nicodemus, but people in general. So, if Jesus is referring to water baptism, then Jesus would be saying EVERYONE would have to be baptized in water, which would eliminate those baptized by desire, of blood, etc. because they weren’t baptized in water. You don’t have that problem with the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, since that would apply to everyone.

 

[thetazlord]

Why? Why aren’t you asking why Christ Himself commanded that we baptize in Matthew 28. why would He have done that if it wasn’t important?

What else did He tells us? John 14:15 ***"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. "

---

Jesus is giving a command to His disciples in Matthew 28:19, but it doesn’t say anything about baptism being a means or “condition” of salvation. And as far as John 14:15, all Jesus is saying if you are genuinely my disciples & love me, you’ll demonstrate this love by doing what I tell you. If you’re not, then you’re really not My disciples. But if this refers to water baptism, then we’re back to UNbaptized people entering Heaven, even though Jesus is saying that being “born of water & the Spirit” is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” These two beliefs contradict each other. Not so with the “water” referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which is backed up by OT Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

I’ll check the *Catena Aurea *Commentary to see if I can find you the Church’s explanation of Jesus’ words. This should convince you that there is no contradiction between our Lord’s words and the Church’s understanding of them. However, I’ll have to do this for you tomorrow, okay? God bless you.

Feel free to do so. I’ll wait. But in the meantime, take a look at logical consequence of believing both the “interpretation” of the “water” in John 3:5 to refer to the waters of baptism and UNbaptized people entering Heaven:

“UNLESS one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“A person who is NOT baptized in water, CAN enter the kingdom of God” (belief in baptized by desire, of blood, etc.)

Take some time to really think about this before responding. God bless you too!

 

[thetazlord]

Coincidentally, the entire text of the answer to “Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?” can be found at
gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html

Not that I’m recommending anyone go there, just saying, the entire answer and “biblical” explanation is there for anyone to find. Or use for debating with Catholics. Ironic.

Actually, I have read that particular article, & have visited that site frequently. Very good resource! And if you read the entire article, it doesn’t support that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, but a “spiritual” cleansing. In fact, it echoes what I said that in the OT, when “water” is used in this way, it symbolically refers to “spiritual cleansing,” not literal use of water. The article basically backs up what I wrote. Thanks for sharing!