Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[SJacob7]

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

I guess one such possible place would be here Acts 10:46-48R (RSVCE)

For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

You were observant to point out with the group that was being baptized with Simon the sorcerer, the instruction was to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. And you stated that wasn’t a correct baptism because it wasn’t using the triune wordage. So probably this is not a ‘correct’ baptism either seeing as it was stated to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ and never mentioned a triune baptism? But, they did receive the Holy Spirit prior to any type of baptism. At least that’s what I’m seeing here. Hmmm.

Ok, I really don’t want to get the OP sidetracked. I probably could ask the question another time. Thanks though for your replies. Something for me to think about!

 

[Sandraaustin]

**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).

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.

Are you responding to my post above yours (p15) to thetazlord? I meant ANY baptism (by blood, by desire; etc) not water only, because I’ve always thought you MUST be baptized (for starters) to attain salvation. Are you saying that’s wrong?
I completely defer to the Church in all matters of faith, so if that’s wrong, will someone please tell me what is the Catholic teaching on this?

 

[Abu]

Sandraaustin #230
I’ve always thought you MUST be baptized (for starters) to attain salvation. Are you saying that’s wrong?
I completely defer to the Church in all matters of faith, so if that’s wrong, will someone please tell me what is the Catholic teaching on this?

The OP, who says he was a Catholic, stated:
*I was also taught those who didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized, but who would had the desire, but died before they could, were exempt from this & could enter Heaven, like those “baptized by desire” (like the thief on the cross) & those “baptized of blood” (like martyrs). I was also taught that this exemption would also apply to those “invincibly ignorant” (like those in foreign countries who never heard of Jesus or baptism, & therefore couldn’t be baptized).

So, since Jesus is making a statement, not giving a command, then “how” can Jesus allow these three groups of people mentioned above (including the thief on the cross) into Heaven without being baptized in water, & without contradicting Himself in John 3:5, 'if" the water refers to the waters of baptism?*

1. The Catholic teaching has always been that baptism is essential – and that it is administered through water.
2. The OP is correct in stating the three “exceptions” to water baptism which he gives above, but then questions those truths of the Church, using the thread to then promote his errors while admitting that he has left the Church.
3. Baptism is essential but may be attained by desire as taught by the Church – as given in post #90:
   “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].
   scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm
4. There is no reason for any Catholic to be confused when the truth is readily available in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as long as she/he realises that some do not follow Christ through His Church and mislead themselves.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Catechism does state that

**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

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

Thanks and God blessYour answer is found in the Catechism

.

**VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM **
1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65

 

[Church_Militant]

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.Your reference is wrong because Matthew 3:3 says 3] For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.”

What you think is subjective and influenced by what you have been taught as a Pentecostal. I know this because I was one for many years.

Suggest that you try again.

 

[Sandraaustin]

The OP, who says he was a Catholic, stated:
*I was also taught those who didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized, but who would had the desire, but died before they could, were exempt from this & could enter Heaven, like those “baptized by desire” (like the thief on the cross) & those “baptized of blood” (like martyrs). I was also taught that this exemption would also apply to those “invincibly ignorant” (like those in foreign countries who never heard of Jesus or baptism, & therefore couldn’t be baptized).

So, since Jesus is making a statement, not giving a command, then “how” can Jesus allow these three groups of people mentioned above (including the thief on the cross) into Heaven without being baptized in water, & without contradicting Himself in John 3:5, 'if" the water refers to the waters of baptism?*

1. The Catholic teaching has always been that baptism is essential – and that it is administered through water.
2. The OP is correct in stating the three “exceptions” to water baptism which he gives above, but then questions those truths of the Church, using the thread to then promote his errors while admitting that he has left the Church.
3. Baptism is essential but may be attained by desire as taught by the Church – as given in post #90:
   “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].
   scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm
4. There is no reason for any Catholic to be confused when the truth is readily available in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as long as she/he realises that some do not follow Christ through His Church and mislead themselves.

Okay, thank you. I just thought you were responding specifically to me, as my post was directly above yours on page 15 and I didn’t think I had said anything contrary to the Faith.

All good then, I’m not confused, we’re on the same page!

 

[thetazlord]

The Catholic Encyclopedia [1907] has this to say regarding the ordinary teaching of the Church on baptism:

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.** It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.**

(Emphasis mine).

I understand all this. I know what baptism by desire & baptism of blood. I am a former Catholic. The problem is that since Jesus is using exclusive wording in John 3:5 about “how” to “enter the kingdom of God,” & “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then even people who are baptized by desire/of blood wouldn’t “enter the kingdom of God,” because that would contradict the interpretation of Jesus’ words in John 3:5. I know I’ve explained this several times, so I’m not sure why people aren’t getting this.

 

[thetazlord]

]

The tazlord. You said (bold and ul mine):QUOTE:
You’re missing the point of what I said, & the implication of Jesus’ words in John 3:5. When Jesus tells Nicodemus, that unless “one” is born of water & the Spirit, “he” cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven - which applies to not only Nicodemus but everyone else (save Jesus) - this is an exclusive statement about how to enter Heaven.
.
It IS an exclusive statement. And I am not missing the point at all.

BUT it is an exclusive statement for the one commanded.
It is an exclusive statement for US (we must be “born of water and the Spirit”).

Not an exclusive statement for Jesus (Jesus can carry out a Baptism of desire which He does not address here, but He also does not bind the command to Himself here or anywhere else though).

What makes Jesus’ words in John 3:5 “exclusive” isn’t simply that Jesus is telling Nicodemus & us that “we” must be born of water & the Spirit, but rather Jesus is explaining “how” a person “enters the kingdom of God.” In the Greek, Jesus isn’t instruction people the “method” how “they” are to enter Heaven (ie: being baptized) , but rather the ONLY way that a person enters Heaven, which is “by the Spirit” (John 3:6,8). This is why in John 3:7 Jesus states “you MUST be born again.” Therefore, if this refers to water baptism, again, Jesus isn’t saying the only “work” or “effort” a person can do to enter Heaven is to be water baptized, but rather the only way a person can enter Heaven is “by the Spirit” - ie: the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 44:3-5).

thetazlord:QUOTE:
Therefore, since Jesus is God, He can’t contradict Himself. And that is exactly what He’d be doing if He allowed people into Heaven that were not “born of water & the Spirit.”
.
Your point falls into the fallacy of equivocation thetazlord. You are changing your premises and I am not going to abide by it.

Not at all. I’m pointing out the Scriptural problem with people entering Heaven who are not baptized in water, based on the interpretation of “water” to refer to the waters of baptism in John 3:5.

Now I want to know HOW you think you are “born from above”? You’ve kept the tread in suspense for over 200 posts. Now it is time to not merely criticize the Catholic position. Now it is time to show what you think the alternative is.

I’ve posted my reply several posts back, & I gave you the link already.

 

[PRmerger]

I know I’ve explained this several times, so I’m not sure why people aren’t getting this.

Not sure why you aren’t getting what we are saying.

Take the Word of God in its entirety, as Catholics do, and you’ll see your answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure why you aren’t getting what we are saying.

Take the Word of God in its entirety, as Catholics do, and you’ll see your answer.

Let’s say we apply your paradigm, thetazlord, to another verse–let’s just go 3 chapters ahead in the Gospel of John.

What do you think Jesus meant by: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you–John 6:52.

Do you think you can ignore this verse and still enter heaven?

What do you think “unless” means? Is this not an ultimatum, as the verse in John 3 is?

 

[thetazlord]

Not sure why you aren’t getting what we are saying.

Take the Word of God in its entirety, as Catholics do, and you’ll see your answer.

Because if I were to take it on what “you” are saying, then I’d be accepting a Scriptural contradiction, which is impossible, since the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, the interpretation must be incorrect. However, understanding “water & the Spirit” to refer to the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” which is supported by Scripture - Old & New Testament (Isaiah 44:3-5; Titus 3:5-7, does not cause this Scriptural contradiction, & is consistent with the rest of Scripture that salvation is the work of God from “above” - not a “work” performed on our part.

 

[thetazlord]

Let’s say we apply your paradigm, thetazlord, to another verse–let’s just go 3 chapters ahead in the Gospel of John.

What do you think Jesus meant by: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you–John 6:52.

Do you think you can ignore this verse and still enter heaven?

What do you think “unless” means? Is this not an ultimatum, as the verse in John 3 is?

You have the same problem with this verse. By believing that Jesus is talking about eating His literal, physical flesh in the communion wafer, then - yes - Jesus would be saying that eating His literal, physical flesh would be the only means of “having eternal life,” because Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for “unless,” which means “except, or if not,” just as He does in John 3:5. So, now you have “two” conditions in order to enter Heaven - water baptism and eating communion. But since this thread is about John 3:5, not John 6:52, let’s stick to the subject & not cause a “split” in the discussion. If you wish to discuss John 5:52, I suggest you start a new thread.

 

[Abu]

Sandraaustin #234
Okay, thank you. I just thought you were responding specifically to me, as my post was directly above yours on page 15 and I didn’t think I had said anything contrary to the Faith.
All good then, I’m not confused, we’re on the same page!

Great.

thetazlord #235
The problem is that since Jesus is using exclusive wording in John 3:5 about “how” to “enter the kingdom of God,” & “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then even people who are baptized by desire/of blood wouldn’t “enter the kingdom of God,” because that would contradict the interpretation of Jesus’ words in John 3:5. I know I’ve explained this several times, so I’m not sure why people aren’t getting this.

You ought to know by now why your interpretation, limiting the Christ and His Church, is in error.

Simply because the Christ did not give you:

1. The keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Did not build His Church on you, but on St. Peter:
2) “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

Gave St Peter the powers:
3) “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve].

Specifically ensuring that:
4) “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

**With the sole authority on Peter: **
5) “Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. Christ’s Catholic Church then gave us the Sacred Scriptures, for the N.T., written by Christ’s Apostles and disciples and defined by Christ’s Church as the Word of God, in which Christ teaches “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Salutary counsel.

**Thus there is no problem, for She teaches **“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].
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm

Thus when we do not listen to the Catholic Church invented problems occur.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

But if you keep reading past that verse - beyond Acts 2:37-38 - Luke goes onto write that those people who had repented were “those who had received his word were baptized” (v.41), & that “they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship” (v.42), & that they all had “believed were together” (v.44). IOW, the people who had been baptized that day at Pentecost had the ABILITY to repent - and they repented before they were baptized in water. This is why in the very next chapter in Acts 3:19, Peter calls others to repent, but no mention of the “necessity” to be water baptized, & then again later in Acts 8:22 - despite Simon the sorcerer being baptized in water (because he wasn’t genuinely saved). What we forget is that unlike today, in the NT era, when people believed, accepted Christ, & repented, they got baptized that very day - or right then & there - like the Ethiopian eunuch and Paul & Silas’ jailor. They didn’t wait days, months, or even years later.

The confusion comes from thinking that since Peter said "repent & be baptized for the for the forgiveness of your sins, that Jesus is saying a person’s sins are forgive simultaneously at the moment of repentance & baptism. But that makes no sense, because when a person repents, it’s not always at the exact same time they are baptized in water - such during John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance, or throughout the NT. What Peter is saying is that repenting is what forgives sins, but that the person who repents should then immediately be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins - not “in order to obtain” forgiveness of sins - that happened when they repented, not when they were baptized. See Luke 3:3:

“And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3)

Otherwise, we’re back to the OP that if water baptism forgives sins, then Jesus (& later Peter) is saying that that is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” If you want to take that position, then fine, but then you can’t “also” say that UNbaptized people (baptized by desire, of blood, etc) “enters the kingdom of God,” without contradicting the words of Jesus, as well as Peter’s in Acts.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord. You repeating the same error over and over again is not more convincing.

You said (here):

QUOTE:
In the Greek, Jesus isn’t instruction people the “method” how “they” are to enter Heaven

You know, thetazlord, Greek Orthodox people see what Catholics see in John 3 as well (not to mention Greek Catholics).

So am I to think (?) . . . .

. . . . . “It’s a good thing thetazlord has come by, so he can sit around with his Greek lexicon and toss away 2000 years of Christian history with his own personal interpretations of the Bible so now I can REALLY know (thanks to thetazlord) what John 3:5 means due to thetazlord’s interpretation of the Greek?”

This is non-sense thetazlord and it is a spiritually precarious position you are putting yourself into (see CCC 2089).

---

Also I asked you specifically (here):

QUOTE:
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?

You said:

QUOTE:
I’ve posted my reply several posts back, & I gave you the link already.

But that post/link merely said “faith”.

And I asked and am asking again HOW do you get that faith? And is it “faith in Jesus Christ? Or faith in God (but not a Trinitarian faith)? Or some other “faith”

Do you “accept Jesus into your heart” or something else (in your tradition) to obey John 3:5?

I have had no problem explicitly answering your question about John 3:5 (it means just what it says). So why don’t you just answer the question as well?

 

[thetazlord]

Great.

You ought to know by now why your interpretation, limiting the Christ and His Church, is in error.

Simply because the Christ did not give you:

1. The keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Did not build His Church on you, but on St. Peter:
2) “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

Gave St Peter the powers:
3) “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve].

Specifically ensuring that:
4) “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

**With the sole authority on Peter: **
5) “Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. Christ’s Catholic Church then gave us the Sacred Scriptures, for the N.T., written by Christ’s Apostles and disciples and defined by Christ’s Church as the Word of God, in which Christ teaches “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Salutary counsel.

**Thus there is no problem, for She teaches **“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].
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm

Thus when we do not listen to the Catholic Church invented problems occur.

First, it’s not “my interpretation” since I’m using OT Scripture, which - based on John Ch.3 - is where you would have to look to find out what the ‘water’ is referring to, not the New Testament. Second, even if you are correct & the teachings you were taught are correct, you still have to compare them to the Word of God. And as I keep saying, the “interpretation” that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, are not only not supported by the OT, but also causes a Scriptural contradiction that isn’t caused with using the OT-supported “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” to refer to “water & Spirit.” So, no offense, by saying that I’m “limiting Christ & His Church” because I disagree that “interpretation” is just circular reasoning. Whatever “interpretation” of that verse still needs to be compared TO Scripture (Acts 17:11).

 

[thetazlord]

Also I asked you specifically (here):

QUOTE:
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?

You said:

QUOTE:
I’ve posted my reply several posts back, & I gave you the link already.

But that post/link merely said “faith”.

No, the post I was referring to was the much longer explanation with OT references from Isaiah & Jeremiah that supports that the “water & Spirit” in John 3:5 refers to the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” - not simply “belief.” What I went onto say is that when Jesus talks about “belief” in John 3:16, He’s referring to those who have the ability to believe vs. those who have the ability to disbelieve (v.18), not those who don’t have that ability like babies & the mentally challenged. Reading ALL of what I wrote - not just “quote mining” parts of sentences I wrote will keep you from making the same assumption & error of what I didn’t say.

And I asked and am asking again HOW do you get that faith? And is it “faith in Jesus Christ? Or faith in God (but not a Trinitarian faith)? Or some other “faith”

“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (ie: Scripture)(Romans 10:17)

Do you “accept Jesus into your heart” or something else (in your tradition) to obey John 3:5?

No, & I’ve explained this to you - numerous times - READ Isaiah 44:3-5, in order to understand John 3:5…it might help you from asking me the same question, I’ve answered MULTIPLE times.

I have had no problem explicitly answering your question about John 3:5 (it means just what it says). So why don’t you just answer the question as well?

Really? Then show me where it says “water baptism” in John 3:5 “just what it says.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Because if I were to take it on what “you” are saying, then I’d be accepting a Scriptural contradiction, which is impossible, since the Bible is the Word of God.

Therefore, the interpretation must be incorrect. However, understanding “water & the Spirit” to refer to the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” which is supported by Scripture - Old & New Testament (Isaiah 44:3-5; Titus 3:5-7, does not cause this Scriptural contradiction, & is consistent with the rest of Scripture that salvation is the work of God from “above” - not a “work” performed on our part.This is your interpretation based upon your adherence to the error of Sola Scriptura which itself has no basis in the Word of God, therefore violates its own premise and by its own standards cannot be a correct doctrine.

Your inability to accept and willingness to ignore the vast amount of early church writings by Christians who were disciples of the apostles themselves completely cripples your interpretations, but I may c&p this post and use it to open a new thread where you can attempt to make your case since this is not really relevant to this particular topic.

You seem to have completely ignored Acts 22:16 where we plainly see water baptism being put forth as both necessary for salvation (in Paul’s case no less) and as sacramental in the washing away of sins.

Furthermore, you have simply ignored my point that Matthew 28:19-20 plainly mandates water baptism without even the remotest reference to any “baptism of the Holy Spirit”.

We Catholics have no problem at all with what all these scriptures say, but we disagree with your private interpretation of them…as do most all of the Christian writings from the early church.

No one argues that salvation isn’t a work of God, but the scriptures do indeed mandate that our salvation and even our love for Christ hinges upon our obedience to His commands as made very plain in Matthew 25:31-46.

By the way: See Post 232 above…

 

[thetazlord]

Which is the definition of being a Christian. Either one obeys Christ or they are not His.

I obeyed Christ by being baptized in water after I repented. But I reject the belief that when a person gets baptized in water, that they receive the Holy Spirit at that time so they can “enter the kingdom of God.” Based on that belief, am I a Christian? If not, then am I not part of the Church? If so, keep in mind that in Acts, if you part of the Church, you were called “the Way,” referring back to John 14:6 when Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, & the Life, NOONE comes to the Father except by ME.” If I believe that, have repented, but recheck the above, then how am I not part of “the Way,” “the Church,” or “not His”? If I’m not part of “the Way,” then does that mean that I need to perform the “work” of water baptism to “enter the kingdom of God”?

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**.First, Christ didn’t give a "command’ in John 3:5. Christ was answering Nicodemus’ question. He was making a statement, not giving a command, about the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, if Christ is referring to water baptism & it’s not “optional,” then those who are “not” baptized in water (baptized by desire, of blood) would not “enter the kingdom of God.” And as I said in the post, since Nicodemus was a “teacher of Israel” he would have taught from the OLD Testament - not the New. And the OLD Testament didn’t teach water baptism to enter the kingdom of God - ie: Heaven. If not, then show me that OLD Testament verse that states that.

This is your opinion, but that’s not what the New Testament itself says.

No it’s not. It’s based on Isaiah 44:3-5 - not “my opinion” - that explains perfectly well exegetically that the “pouring of water” referring to the “pouring of the Spirit” mentioned by Isaiah refers to the “outpouring of water & the Spirit” in John 3:5, which is further supported by the “pouring out of the Holy Spirit” in Titus 3:5-7. Plus, it doesn’t cause the Scriptural contradiction that “water baptism” does in John 3:5. So, it does have both OT & NT support.

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

.Paul isn’t saying that water baptism “saves” a person in this verse. If he did, then he’d be saying that a person can’t be saved UNLESS one is baptized in water, which brings us back the the OP about John 3:5. Understanding that in Acts 22:16 the Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated “calling on His name” refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, “be baptized.” Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated “having called on His name” which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events. And regarding Ananias, keep in mind that the order of events of when Paul received the Holy Spirit & when he was baptized is important. He received the Holy Spirit first (Acts 9:17) & “then” he was baptized (v.18) - not simultaneously. Again, unlike today, when people believed, repented, & then received the Holy Spirit, they then immediately got baptized. Receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of water baptism was not a single event. The Holy Spirit came first, & then afterwards a person was baptized in water out of obedience to Christ, but not as a “condition” of “entering the kingdom of God.”

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.

 

[thetazlord]

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…

Then if water baptism is “necessary” for salvation, then that would mean that if a person is not baptized in the “necessary” baptismal water, then they’d go to Hell. If something isn’t “necessary” then it’s not “required,” which being “born again/born of water & the Spirit” is - “required”:

“You MUST (Greek: “required to”) be born again” (John 3:7)
“UNLESS one is born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)
“UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)

Since “born again” = “born of water & the Spirit,” John 3:7 could just as easily read:

“You MUST (Greek: “required to”) be born of water & the Spirit”

So, “if” the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then John 3:7 would be saying:

“You MUST (Greek: “required to”) be baptized in water.”

So, “if” water baptism is “necessary” or “required” to “enter the kingdom of God,” then ANYONE who is not baptized in water would not “enter the kingdom of God.” This would include “UNbaptized in water,” like those baptized by desire, of blood because they weren’t baptized in water.

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.

Again, if water baptism is “necessary” that those baptized by desire, of blood, etc,would not “enter the kingdom of God” because they weren’t baptized in “necessary/required” water. And those other verses actually don’t support water baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, you’re back to issues raised above & in the OP.

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.

The Holy Spirit does guide men to the Truth (2 Peter 1:20-21), but not “all” men. But the way we can tell the difference is by coming what they believe TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), & whether or not their belief contradicts Scripture. And the Holy Spirit will help you to discern “who” He is guiding. Something we can’t do without Him.

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.

The problem is that their “tradition answers” based on “their” interpretation of those Bible passages don’t take into account the Scriptural contradictions that are created by “assuming” those “answers” are correct.

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.

God bless you too! I actually LOVED my Catholic upbringing. Especially being an altar boy. Had a wonderful parish, great Catholic education, & loved the priests. Got along with all of them. But when I began to compare what I was taught to the Word of God, it was actually Scripture & the contradictions created by the “assumptions” about salvation (such as the ones listed above) that led me away from Catholicism. But I can assure you - I “am” at home in the Church.