That still didn’t answer my question. If the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then that would mean water baptism would be the ONLY means of “entering the kingdom of God” based on Jesus’ exclusive words. So, “how” do UNbaptized people “enter the kingdom of God,” without contradicting the “interpretation” of John 3:5? This is what I’m asking that people aren’t getting.
No, that’s not what I said or meant. I brought up Revelation to point out that it’s one of the more difficult books to understand - but I didn’t even allude that it’s “not clear at all.” The point is that even the book of Revelation “can” (meaning “is able to be”) understood, because the book of Revelation “says so.”
Fine with me. Can we “attempt” to stay on topic & address the OP?
No, it’s “very Catholic” to believe you got saved when you got baptized in water - either as a baby or as an adult. I reject my infant baptism as a means of salvation. I didn’t know what I was doing, & in the NT Church adults didn’t “speak on behalf” of their children in terms of salvation.This is very Catholic.
Funny, because Catholics like ChurchMilitant would strongly disagree with you about that. In fact, I asked him if I was a Christian, & he said “Nope.” So, who is wrong, you or him?Baptized Catholic = claimed by Christ forever.
John the Baptist was not part of the Church, because he was martyred long before Pentecost when the Church was established. He was still saved & went to Heaven after Jesus died, descended into the Hades & “took the captive captive” - the OT saints - to Heaven. That’s because JTB was still under the OLD Covenant, not the New. In fact, I’m pretty sure the Catholic church understands it that way as well.
I’m not saying water baptism is meaningless, just not a means of salvation nor the salvific work of the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer at the moment of baptism. If that were true, then anyone “not” baptized in water would not receive the Holy Spirit. In fact, Jesus being baptized in water is a perfect example that the purpose of water baptism is not “to enter the kingdom of God,” because Jesus didn’t need to be baptized, since He was sinless. This is why He said to JTB about His own baptism, “we have to do this for righteousness sake.” Not only was Jesus legitimizing the ministry of JTB, but since water is a symbol in the OT about the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 44:3-5), when Jesus got baptized He did it as a way of identifying with sinners, whose sins He would bear, & His perfect righteousness would be imputed to them (2 Corinthians 5:21). Repenting (turning away from one’s sinful lifestyle & towards God) is what leads to salvation, which MUST begin with "the Spirit’ (John 3:7).
Actually the term “Holy Spirit” is used in the OT (Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 63:10-11), Who is described with personal characteristics such as “grieved.” The fact that the OT Jews wouldn’t have understood that is irrelevant, since the OT says the Messiah’s own people would reject Him - and they did. An OT Jew with spiritual discernment would have realized - from their own Scriptures - that the Messiah was going to God Himself. Part of the problem is that because of their spiritual blindness to recognize Jesus as their Messiah based on their Scripture, they had added so much “tradition” to the Scriptures, by the time Jesus came around, they didn’t recognize Him, because He didn’t match up to their “traditional” view of Who the Messiah would be.
Remember, I said that the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” refers back to Isaiah 44:3-5, which is foreshadows John 3:5. This understanding to John 3:5 would include the OT saints as well as NT saints:
So what you’re saying is that Jesus is saying that a person MUST be baptized in water to enter the kingdom of God and an UNbaptized person CAN enter the kingdom of God without being baptized in water. Because that is what you’re implying.
Then if the Holy Spirit comes at baptism at our “new birth,” then the implication would be that anyone who is not baptized in water would “not” receive the Holy Spirit, & would “not” receive a “new birth,” & would not “enter the kingdom of God.”
I know you didn’t allude that; you should’ve, however.
We are on topic.
Jesus’ words weren’t exclusive. You decided they must be.
It’s not a problem, because “I’m” not the “interpreting” the “eating of the flesh of the Son of Man” to mean physically eating the communion wafer. Jesus isn’t talking about communion in John 6 anymore than He’s talking about baptism in John 3. Otherwise, you’d have at least two salvation plans - baptism & communion, rather than one - the saving power of the Holy Spirit to change hearts, which happens at the moment He “pours” Himself out “like” water on the unregenerated, & they become regenerated. Jesus uses “eat” & “drink” in John 6 figuratively just as He uses “water” figuratively in John 3. The key to understanding that Jesus is speaking figuratively in John 6 is John 6:35, where He talks about relieving “hunger” by “coming to Him,” & relieving “thirst” by believing in Him. Obviously, you can’t literally “drink” believing in someone, anymore than you literally “eat” someone by coming to them - that’s called cannibalism.
No, it’s a Red Herring, because this OP has to do with John 3:5, not John 6. You know, we’re supposed to stay on ONE subject, not go off on tangents. That causes splits. I’M attempting to stay on one topic, while it seems like most everyone else is purposely attempting to talk on multiple subjects & cause splits. Funny how the NON-Catholic is the one attempting to break the rules of the forum.
This “isolated” verse is just as much as the Word of God as the rest of the Bible. Remember, when the NT was written, they weren’t divided into verses, let alone chapters. What I’m attempting to do is to gain a clear understanding of what the “water” Jesus is talking about. If it refers to the waters of baptism, as well as all the other verses in the NT that “appear” to support water baptismal salvation, then John 3:5 would be saying that is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” Therefore, since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, then the rest of those passages would have to imply the same thing. Otherwise, that would cause a contradiction, which is impossible. Therefore, to avoid errancy in the Word of God, then the interpretation must be wrong. Not so for the “water & Spirit” referring to the “outpouring of the Spirit.”
I addressed this already - see above. And I didn’t “dismiss it.”
Funny that you used the word “must.” What is your definition of “must” in that sentence? Does it mean “required”? I decide that Jesus’ words “must” (“required to be”) exclusive? Well, that’s what “must” means in the Greek in John 3:7:
No, you decided they must be exclusive. You are being exclusive, while He was not. We know this because the whole context of Scripture and Tradition, both His expressions to the Church that He established, speak otherwise. And because He said many things to His Church, which you refuse to heed, not all of which were recorded, because He never even intended His bible to be a clear and exhaustive catechism that anyone from any perspective could pick up, read, and discern the whole gospel truth from.
I will thetazlord. Later when I get to a keyboard (away from an android tablet).
Well, yes and no.
I hope it doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy, taz.
Is this on topic?
All of the above also applies to John 6:52. UNLESS is part of the text there.
No. I have never said that unbaptized people can enter the kingdom of God without being baptized in water.
Indeed.
Do you see the danger you are actually acknowledging? See what I bolded in your response.
I can’t stop thinking about how pernicious this type of thinking is.