Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord

This is the contradiction that occurs by believing that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism and believing in baptism by desire.

No thetazlord.

This is the kind of contradiction that occurs by you knowing the command is directed to humanity then baiting and switching your premise to apply it to Jesus too (when you already admitted “A” in my question to you)

(See “Thank you! That would be “A”” for details in post 200 here)

• Command to be born of water and the Spirit is to US
• Jesus MAY bypass this command which is NOT directed at Him (but us)

Both.
No contradiction.
Different senses.
Your position is the fallacious one thetazlord.

**Now I want to know HOW you think you are “born from above”? **

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord.

You said:

Rather, the Pharisees were “teachers” of the OLD Testament Scriptures. Therefore, what Jesus expected the “teacher” Nicodemus to “understand” would have been from the Old Testament. But the Pharisees wouldn’t have “taught” water baptism, since water baptism wasn’t “taught” in the Old Testament.

I’ll address WHY this is a partial truth later. The teachers of the Law knew that actual water would be used when the Messiah came. I’ll explain why later.

You also said:

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

So you conclude “water” must not mean “water” in John 3:5 because of what you think about the Old Testament?

You also said:

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

I understand this is what you think and it is a partial truth.

Then you said:

. . . . Jesus goes onto say that those who have the ability to “believe” will inherit eternal life (John 3:16), but those who have the ability to willfully “disbelieve” will be condemned & not receive this “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit.

.**

OK. HOW Is One Born Of Water and the Spirit?**

So the “HOW” of getting the water and Spirit really means just for you to “believe”?
Do you have to “repent” or “call upon His name” or “confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord” to be born of water and the Spirit too?

Is all this other stuff optional or necessary for being born of water and the Spirit?

Do I have this correct or incorrect?

If correct, do you just someday decide to “believe” or is there some sort of quasi-liturgical action (i.e. “asking Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” for example)?

HOW do you become “born of water and the Spirit”?

I want to see what the synonym for being born of water and the Spirit is in your theological proposition thetazlord.

Something like: “Being born of water and the Spirit” = “Deciding to believe in Jesus”

Or

“Being born of water and the Spirit” = “Admitting you are a sinner and asking Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior”.

Or

“Being born of water and the Spirit” = “Repentance of your sinfulness and asking Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior”.

Or some other equivalent.

I still don’t know what you think in this realm. Please be more specific.

 

[Sandraaustin]

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

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

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

Well, thetazlord, as a former Catholic, at least you’re already baptized. I think it’s dangerous, maybe even a work of the evil one to suggest that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation…which seems to be what this interpretation is saying. I do understand how this interpretation of John 3:5 came to be, but since the conclusion can’t be, (because of all the other scriptural evidence for baptism being both necessary and a command), I can only defer to the Church to guide me, so I really think this matter comes down to interpretation and who’s authorized to interpret scripture.

Some protestants say the Holy Spirit guides them…just them, their Bible and the Holy Spirit…in fact sometimes it seems they feel anyone but the Pope can do this… but since they’re being “guided” every which way, this can’t be right.

Everyone here has gone "above and beyond" and done a fabulous job of providing good biblical and traditional answers for your query. I bumped up this post from page 3 because I think it’s not only true, but one of the simplest.

God bless you, I have no doubt you are sincere in your search for the truth. I hope and pray you come back to the Church. Maybe someday you can start a thread on what you miss most about the Church–that I’d love to hear, if it’s not against forum rules, of course.

 

[Abu]

Any insistence on the falsehood – that no one can be saved without water baptism – denies the reality and fidelity of Christ’s own Church, Her teaching and that of St Paul, given to us by Christ’s Catholic Church, who observed: “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles?” (Rom 3:29).

The great St Paul teaches the salvation of pagans who followed the law made known to them in their hearts, in Rom 2:14-16:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

The great St Augustine emphasizes in his Epistle 102: “The salvation of this religion [Christ’s Church] through which alone true salvation is truly promised, was never lacking to anyone who was worthy, and he to whom it was lacking, was not worthy.”

All of the errors absorbed by those placing themselves above Christ and His Church arise through the failure to assent to His clear mandate to Her: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19). There is nothing more that God the Son, the Christ, did to make it crystal clear that His Church could not teach error or lead astray in doctrine or dogma, together with the installation of His Supreme Vicar, St Peter.

 

[ericc]

John specifically stated he came to baptize with water for repentance. So, of course it was “effective.” But it wasn’t for salvation. Remember, he called people to “Repent!” first, and “then” they were baptized in water. But, then John said, “I came to baptize with water for repentance, but there will be One Who will baptize with the Holy Spirit” - not “baptized in water & the Spirit.” John made this clear the distinction between “baptism of water for repentance” & “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

Since you have declared that baptism of water is defined as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, then your statement on the “effectiveness” of the baptism of John the Baptist(JTB) is nonsensical. I take it you mean effective for repentance but not for salvation, it actually means zero value. It is clear that those he baptized did not received the HS as mentioned in Acts. So those who died after their water baptism under John prior to them receiving the HS will NOT be saved by your interpretation. So your word “effective” carries no meaning, no substance at all. You repent but not saved because the HS did not poured on to you?

Then the conclusion from your theology of outpouring of the HS is that God chose a vehicle in JTB to deceive the people in promising that as long as they repent they will be saved, which in your view will not be since they did not receive the “outpouring” of the HS. All his baptisms are for nought?

I don’t think anyone can accept this conclusion. If JTB only preached repentance but did not conduct water baptism, may be you might have a point. Since he conducted water baptism and continued to do so after he has baptized Jesus, and if he is ineffective salvation wise according to you, then this prophet of the Most High, has deceived the masses. But we know that can not be for some one filled with the HS and called the “greatest born of a woman”. Hence your theology is not inclusive of ALL scriptures and can not stand by itself. I can understand your reluctance to comment on JTB as this is your weak point.

 

[Church_Militant]

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 Which is the definition of being a Christian. Either one obeys Christ or they are not His. So then this is a command from Christ and again, I have to ask, if it’s not necessary for salvation, why did He command it? I see nothing in the New Testament that even implies it is optional.

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.

This is your opinion, but that’s not what the New Testament itself says. After all even St. Paul believed that Baptism sacramentally washed away sins and that was specifically the message that Anani’as gave Paul at his conversion.

There is no contradiction here, just your own error since nowhere in any of the passages in the New Testament do we see any reference to water being synonymous with the reception/filling of the Holy Spirit. This is just some denomination’s twisted interpretation.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

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

This is completely wrong. We see the types of water baptism again and again in the OT wherever it decrees a ceremonial cleansing.

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

This is a perfect example of an n-C trying to force your own interpretation onto a passage that does not support it.

"'For I will pour out water on the thirsty land
And streams on the dry ground;

I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring
And My blessing on your descendants;
And they will spring up among the grass
Like poplars by streams of water.’
This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’S’;
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, ‘Belonging to the LORD,’
And will name Israel’s name with honor" (Isaiah 44:3-5)Specifically two entirely different things with different targets and different effects.

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

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration

and ***renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ***so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7)Except that this passage speaks of two different things. The first is the gateway to the second. Again you have sought to force an interpretation agenda onto a passage.

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

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

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

This is just more interpretations forced onto scripture.

I’m surprised that you haven’t sought to use Acts 2 and 1st Corinthians 12 to support your position, but maybe that’s because Peter and the apostles never make the connection between baptism and salvation that your agenda demands.

(cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Look here at Acts 2. "37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers? 38 Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,** every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins**; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

Did Peter get it wrong? Of course not since he was speaking by the Holy Spirit, which clearly shows that he refers to two different events. Water baptism. “(41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.”) and then the reception of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SJacob7]

Look here at Acts 2. "37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers? 38 Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,** every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins**; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

Did Peter get it wrong? Of course not since he was speaking by the Holy Spirit, which clearly shows that he refers to two different events. Water baptism. “(41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.”) and then the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Just a quick question. Does everyone who is baptized receive the Holy Spirit?

Thanks and God bless

 

[eazyduzit]

Militant, I dont think the passage demands that water and spirit must be 2differnt things. In Mt. 3:3 HS and fire are not 2things. Nicodemus would have understood if the “water” meant baptism or micva. Please show another passage where “water” alone refers to baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a quick question. Does everyone who is baptized receive the Holy Spirit?

Thanks and God bless

Yes. Everyone who is baptized in the Trinity using water.

 

[PRmerger]

Militant, I dont think the passage demands that water and spirit must be 2differnt things. In Mt. 3:3 HS and fire are not 2things. Nicodemus would have understood if the “water” meant baptism or micva. Please show another passage where “water” alone refers to baptism.

I Peter 3:20-21: “… in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

 

[ericc]

Militant, I dont think the passage demands that water and spirit must be 2differnt things. In Mt. 3:3 HS and fire are not 2things. Nicodemus would have understood if the “water” meant baptism or micva. Please show another passage where “water” alone refers to baptism.

John the Baptist- he baptized with water only.

Acts 8:16 - baptized but without the HS.

 

[SJacob7]

Yes. Everyone who is baptized in the Trinity using water.

If that is true, then can you help me understand why in Acts 8 Simon the sorcerer along with others believed and were baptized but did not receive the Holy Spirit? It looks like Peter and John went to Samaria (after the baptism) and prayed that the new believers might receive the HS. And Simon the sorcerer, being baptized, never did receive the HS if I’m understanding it correctly.

??

 

[PRmerger]

If that is true, then can you help me understand why in Acts 8 Simon the sorcerer along with others believed and were baptized but did not receive the Holy Spirit? It looks like Peter and John went to Samaria (after the baptism) and prayed that the new believers might receive the HS. And Simon the sorcerer, being baptized, never did receive the HS if I’m understanding it correctly.

??

I think the Scriptures themselves give us the answer: because he was not baptized in the Trinity. Only in the name of Jesus.

 

[TimothyH]

John the Baptist- he baptized with water only.

Acts 8:16 - baptized but without the HS.

John the Baptist was performing the Jewish ritual purification in what is known as a mikveh. The waters of the Jordan river were the mikveh. Ritual purification is still practiced by Jews today.

myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Weddings/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Custom/Mikveh/how-to-mikveh.shtml

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh

google.com/search?q=mikveh&client=firefox-a&hs=WXl&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=erumVIipMsSXyASK34KgAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1876&bih=1008&dpr=0.9#rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&q=ancient+mikvah&revid=1042046131

The Greek word baptizein means dip, plunge, immerse, sink, overwhelm, go under, etc. John was immersing people in water according to the Jewish purification ritual.

Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:5-6)

baptized = immersed.

Notice that all of the region came to John the Baptist. The entire nation was in expectation and were preparing for his arrival. Even the Pharisees and Sadducees came for ritual immersion and everyone was confessing their sins.

-Tim-

 

[SJacob7]

I think the Scriptures themselves give us the answer: because he was not baptized in the Trinity. Only in the name of Jesus.

But they did receive the Holy Spirit after prayer and laying on of hands (except Simon the sorcerer). Did they have to get baptized again if it wasn’t correct the first time? I wonder if Philip got it right when he baptized the Eunuch, it doesn’t say…

I’m still wondering if the Holy Spirit is received at baptism…???

 

[PRmerger]

But they did receive the Holy Spirit after prayer and laying on of hands (except Simon the sorcerer).

Yes. But the HS cannot reside in a leaky vessel.

Did they have to get baptized again if it wasn’t correct the first time? I wonder if Philip got it right when he baptized the Eunuch, it doesn’t say…

Yes. You must be baptized again “if it wasn’t correct the first time”.

I’m still wondering if the Holy Spirit is received at baptism…???

Yes. The HS is received at baptism…if baptism is done in water using the trinitarian formula.

 

[SJacob7]

Yes. But the HS cannot reside in a leaky vessel.

Yes. You must be baptized again “if it wasn’t correct the first time”.

Yes. The HS is received at baptism…if baptism is done in water using the trinitarian formula.

Ok, thanks for your response. Please excuse me for interrupting what the OP asked. I just wanted a little clarification, don’t mean to sidetrack the OP. I think you explained it as you see it. Although I still struggle with it, because there were events where after receiving the Holy Spirit people were baptized. So they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit because of being baptized. Questions, questions…

Sorry again, I shouldn’t get off point from thetazlord’s question!

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, thanks for your response. Please excuse me for interrupting what the OP asked. I just wanted a little clarification, don’t mean to sidetrack the OP. I think you explained it as you see it. Although I still struggle with it, because there were events where after receiving the Holy Spirit people were baptized. So they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit because of being baptized. Questions, questions…

Sorry again, I shouldn’t get off point from thetazlord’s question!

Can you give an example of someone who received baptism AFTER receiving the HS?