Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[thetazlord]

This is how Catholics profess we are saved:

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

John 3:5 doesn’t support water baptism. Otherwise, like in the OP, that would mean EVERYBODY would have to be baptized in water, or they’d end up in Hell. 1 Peter 3:21 doesn’t say “baptism saves.” You are only quoting “part” of that verse. It states that baptism is an “antitype” - an earthly expression of a spiritual reality. In fact, Peter goes on to explain that he’s not talking about immersion (baptism) in water (washing away of dirt). Titus 3:5 doesn’t even mention baptism, just as John 3:5 doesn’t. Titus 3:5-7 is talking about the washing of water by the WORD, & by the pouring out of the Spirit - the same thing Isaiah 44:3-5, when “Spirit” is used with “water” in the OT. These verses don’t support water baptism. In fact, 2 of them (John 3:5; Titus 3:5) don’t even mention baptism.

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

This isn’t talking about physically “eating” & “drinking” Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would be saying that is the ONLY way to “have eternal life” (John 6:53). This has to do with satisfying spiritual “hunger” & quenching spiritual “thirst” just as Jesus said earlier in the passage (John 6:35).

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

These verses don’t teach works salvation. James is stating in James 2:24 that the kind of faith that is “dead” is a phony uncommitted faith that doesn’t SHOW works (James 2:17), not that works LEADS to salvation. Same with Romans 2:6-7. Otherwise, these verses would contradict Ephesians 2:9 that says we are NOT saved by works.

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

BINGO! GOD’S grace, not man’s works (see above)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

By feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)

All “works” that - again - DEMONSTRATE our faith is genuine, but not a “means” of salvation.

It is the diabolical plan of the evil one to dupe folks into thinking they can ignore the rest of the Word of God because they’ve read one verse.

Christians don’t do this. Rather, they acknowledge the “whole” of Scripture & Jesus’ “finished” work on the cross through His shed blood for us. But not even a single verse like John 3:5 will contradict the rest of Scripture, not the “traditions” of a particular church. If it does, then either the tradition is wrong, or the interpretation of the verse is wrong. But they both can’t be right, because they contradict each other.

 

[fhansen]

Well, I trust the words in God-breathed Scripture when Peter states the Holy Spirit guides men in proclaiming the prophecy, rather than one’s own interpretation - whether that interpretation is that of an individual or a religious organization. IOW, Peter states we can “know” what Scripture states, & even John states that we can “assured” of our salvation based on what’s written. I find it interesting that some Catholics on this forum state that God’s Word is “unclear,” yet others believe that they know exactly what it means.

Christians know what it means, with certainty, only to the extent that the Church teaches a particular doctrine associated with it.

BTW, your understanding of the understanding of Scripture in Church history is incorrect. Although in the LATER Church, many were illiterate, in the EARLY Church, Paul’s epistles were circulated & read, & even recognized by Peter as Inspired Scripture (2 Peter 3:16-17).

The EARLY Church consisted of believers from a fairly widespread area. Some were literate and some not. But the point is absurd anyway, unless we’re to believe that God wanted EARLY believers to interpret privately but not so for the vast majority of the following centuries.

And water baptismal salvation wasn’t something that the Church “universally” agreed on “for centuries.” The 2nd through 4th Century Catholic church - including the ECF’s - weren’t “universal” in their “belief” in water baptismal salvation. This “universality” didn’t occur until later.

That’s interesting. Can you show me an ECF that taught that water baptism was unnecessary for salvation?

And this “single verse” is no less God-breathed Scripture than the rest of the Bible. So, if an interpretation of even a “single” verse contradicts other “beliefs” taught, then either the interpretation is wrong, or those beliefs (like baptism by desire, of blood, etc) are wrong. But they both can’t be right, because they contradict each othereek: “required to’) be baptized in water.”

There are plenty of less-than-satisfactorily-resolved apparent contradictions in Scripture. You’re whole line of “reasoning” is an exercise in wishful thinking.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s because it violate forum rules. If either one of you want to talk about a different topic, begin another thread.

I just did a cursory search of some of your posts here on this thread, taz. And look at **all of the “off topic” **comments you have made. And I didn’t even search the entire thread.

So are you saying that you get to be off topic, when you feel you can respond to the objections?

Would it be a correct conclusion for us to make that, since you are not opposed to being off topic for some things, that when you seek succor in the “I won’t answer that because it’s off topic!” mantra, what you actually mean is, “I can’t answer that because you’ve stumped me?”

Well, I trust the words in God-breathed Scripture when Peter states the Holy Spirit guides men in proclaiming the prophecy, rather than one’s own interpretation - whether that interpretation is that of an individual or a religious organization. IOW, Peter states we can “know” what Scripture states, & even John states that we can “assured” of our salvation based on what’s written. I find it interesting that some Catholics on this forum state that God’s Word is “unclear,” yet others believe that they know exactly what it means. BTW, your understanding of the understanding of Scripture in Church history is incorrect. Although in the LATER Church, many were illiterate, in the EARLY Church, Paul’s epistles were circulated & read, & even recognized by Peter as Inspired Scripture (2 Peter 3:16-17). The EARLY Church would have understood what they heard, because just like the OT, they compared what was taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). And water baptismal salvation wasn’t something that the Church “universally” agreed on “for centuries.” The 2nd through 4th Century Catholic church - including the ECF’s - weren’t “universal” in their “belief” in water baptismal salvation. This “universality” didn’t occur until later. And this “single verse” is no less God-breathed Scripture than the rest of the Bible. So, if an interpretation of even a “single” verse contradicts other “beliefs” taught, then either the interpretation is wrong, or those beliefs (like baptism by desire, of blood, etc) are wrong. But they both can’t be right, because they contradict each other.

No, actually Scripture explicitly states that “if you call upon the Name of the Lord, you will be saved.” The Greek word for “call” in this passage means a response to a “call” from God. God is the One initiates a “call” to His elect, who then responds to that “call.” And at that moment they are saved. Justification is not a process but a moment (Romans 5:1).

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?

Purgatory doesn’t really solve the problem either, because Jesus states that “UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.”

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying in reference to those verses. Let me clarify:

When I brought you Purgatory, I was simply pointing out that those who believe in it (which I no longer do) believe in the fires of Purgatory that allegedly “purges” a person’s remaining sins before entering Heaven, & that according to that “belief” there are no ‘waters’ of baptism there to “cleanse” a person before entering Heaven. Water baptism is something that happens on earth - not after death.

When I was talking about John the Baptist, when he was specifically referencing Jesus who would come to baptize them with fire, it was in reference to the Hellfire. But when he speaks about the future church, it was in reference to the Holy Spirit, Who descended on the Church like "tongues of fire. So, I think there was some confusion there. Hope that clears things up.

The reason the OT saints got into Heaven without being baptized in water, was like Abraham, they were “credited righteousness” which Paul points out in his epistle to the Romans. They were faithfully living & looking forward to their coming Messiah, Who was fulfilled in the God-Man of Jesus Christ.

I also understand that the Baptist’s baptism is not the same as Jesus’ baptism. John even states this when he said, "I came to baptize with water for repentence; but there will be one [ie: Jesus Christ] Who will come to baptize you with the HOLY SPIRIT. So, I’ve always wondered - ever since I was a Catholic “why” people thought the “baptism” of the HOLY SPIRIT that Jesus echoed in Acts. Ch.1 referred to the waters of baptism. Plus, the issue still goes back to “if” the waters in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & since Jesus uses EXCLUSIVE wording (“UNLESS” & “CANNOT”), then “how” can a person “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water? And saying that God isn’t bound by the same sacraments He commands us doesn’t really solve the problem, because that’s like saying "Jesus says there is only ONE way to “enter the kingdom of God” - water baptism - but then saying “well, there are ‘other ways.’” That’s a contradiction that can only be avoided “if” the “water” in John 3:5 does not refer to the waters of baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

BINGO! GOD’S grace, not man’s works (see above)

Very Catholic, this!

Christians don’t do this. Rather, they acknowledge the “whole” of Scripture & Jesus’ “finished” work on the cross through His shed blood for us. But not even a single verse like John 3:5 will contradict the rest of Scripture, not the “traditions” of a particular church. If it does, then either the tradition is wrong, or the interpretation of the verse is wrong. But they both can’t be right, because they contradict each other.

You are very Catholic when you proclaim this, taz.

 

[PRmerger]

Because as a slave a Christ - a Christian - I trust in the “finished” work of Christ’s shed blood on the cross for me. And as His slave, I submit my life to His will, which includes denying that there is any “work” on my part that can in anyway “merit” salvation - even in a “cooperational” sense - “with” God, such as in water baptism or eating a communion wafer or drinking communion wine, thinking that “unless” I participates in these things, that I “cannot” enter the kingdom of God, & not have “eternal life in me.”

Interesting.

So there is NOTHING we need to do in order to be saved?

You believe in universal salvation, then? Muslims are in heaven? Atheists, too?

There is ONE Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), & ONE salvation plan - grace through faith & NOT of “myself” (Ephesians 2:8-9). When Jesus said “it is finished!” He meant it.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[ericc]

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.

There is nothing in John 3:3-5 that requires the formation of the Church for it to be true or to take effect. Why do you need to wait for Pentecost? Where does it say that JTB will be saved/judged under the Old covenant? A presumption? JTB was also filled with the Holy Spirit. Since he is filled with the HS, then why couldn’t he be saved by the New Covenant under your theology?

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 water baptism does not have salvific value, and it is not meaningless, then what exactly in your mind value/meaning did it bring? For your theology to make overall sense, you must have an explanation for the purpose and effects of water baptism.You just can’t leave it dangling there and just talk about your outpouring of the HS.

If that were true, then anyone “not” baptized in water would not receive the Holy Spirit.

That is also not true. See Acts 10:44. God is not limited by his sacraments. God can elect anyone to be saved according to his Will.

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.”

That is a fallacious argument. None of the sentences you said logically lead to the conclusion that water baptism lead to not “to enter the kingdom of God”. And right after Nicodemus, in John 3:22, Jesus and his disciples went and baptized in the land of Judea. Why would Jesus/disciples do that if water baptism has no salvific value? In Acts 8:38, the eunuch stopped the chariot so that Philip can baptized him with water. In Acts10:47, even after the Gentiles had received the HS, Peter still called for water to baptized them. You really need to clarify in your world what is the meaning/purpose of water baptism. You are denying that water baptism , being the new circumcision, is the sign of the new Covenant, that marks the adoption into God’s family. There is salvific value.

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).

That is all nice verbage mirroring www.gotquestions.org but nothing in there leads to the conclusion that leads to your theology that you assumed by stitching John 3:3-5 and Isaiah 44:3-5 together.

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.

It doesn’t count for much because prior to Isaiah, which OT prophet taught or understood the HS to be a person? None. They understood the HS to be the divine force of God. Isaiah did not reveal that the HS is a separate person apart from God either. There was no God the father, just God in Jewish eyes. The HS was only revealed by Jesus. The Jews can’t be faulted because the HS were not taught by ANY OT prophet, not because they rejected the Messiah. Even if the Messiah didn’t come, they would still remain clueless about the HS.

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:

“Unless one is born of water & the Spirit (receives the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5; cf. Isaiah 44:3-5). So, this would apply to the OT saints, which would include Abraham who just “credited righteousness” (Romans 4:3-11,22).

You have made John3;3-5 effective retroactive to OT times. Jesus upgraded the OT commandments, he didn’t made it retroactively effective. That would be unfair to those who haven’t heard of Jesus. I still need your chapter verse support alleging that Abraham and OT prophets were “accepted by the HS” or “outpouring” of the HS on them. I can’t find it.

So prior to Isaiah, what happen to those OT prophets and Jews who were clueless about the HS? In fact even after Isaiah, OT prophets still do not know about the 3rd person of the Trinity.

I also couldn’t find the Reformer Fathers teaching what you are postulating. Can you point me to the relevant sources? I was hoping to see where you are coming from.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean I what I’ve been saying. I don’t know what you are talking about. And, BTW, you just “flipped” from saying there is “no one salvation plan” to “yes, we are agreed there is ONLY one salvation plan.” So, which is it?

sigh!

How about if I present it this way…

There are a multitude of things we can do in order to be saved. That’s what Scripture says. We have to be baptized. We have to repent. We have to profess with our mouths. We have to forgive each other. We have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Not just one way.

That’s what the devil wants you to believe–just do one thing and you’re in. “Let’s get these fools to think they just have to go down to an ‘altar call’ (something that’s not even in the Bible–haha! What a delicious irony!) and accept Christ into their hearts and they’re good to go! They will then ignore the rest of the Bible and when that happens…[cue the sinister, hysterical, fiendish laugh]”

However…

there is just ONE PLAN that God had for our salvation. And that was the Passion, Death and Resurrection of His Only Begotten Son.

So…

Scripture says there’s lots of things for us to do. One thing for God to do.

As far as soteriology goes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed.

I find that when people can’t answer questions, they like to resort to a rather thinly veiled dismissal: “This is off topic!”

But, peculiarly, they always reserve for themselves the right to go “off topic” at their own discretion.

Curious, that.

:sad_yes:

 

[Randy_Carson]

But Jesus isn’t speaking “normatively” in John 3:5,7, but “exclusively,” because in Greek, “must” means “required” - not “normative.” Therefore, “if” the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then in John 3:5,7, Jesus is saying that a person would be “required” (“must”) to be baptized in water to enter the kingdom of God.

Point 1:
“A person would be ‘required’…to be baptized in water to enter the kingdom of God.”

It’s neither required nor normative, because water baptism isn’t a “means” of salvation, not even in John 3:5 - which refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism.

Point 2;
“It’s neither required nor normative, because water baptism isn’t a “means” of salvation.”

So, from these two points, the question is whether or not the baptism in John 3:5 refers to water baptism or not, correct?

And your view is that it does not and that water baptism is not required for salvation, correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I had a question about John 3:5 & the “water” Jesus is referring to:

"Unless one is born of water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

When I was being raised Catholic, I was taught that the water refers to the waters of baptism, which means that John 3:5 could just as easily be read:

"Unless one is baptized in water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

This seems to be Cardinal Arinze’s understanding in this video (starting about 01:15):

youtube.com/watch?v=gkHsl8hl4yo

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).

My question is if these people can get into Heaven without being baptized in water, then wouldn’t that contradict the belief that the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism?

No.

"Unless one is born of water (baptized in water) & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

I was told that Jesus isn’t bound by the same commands He gives us. But upon reading John Ch.3, Jesus isn’t making a “command,” but rather answering Nicodemus question (“How can one be born again?”) from Jesus’ previous statement (“Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”) Jesus seems to be making a statement on “how” a person “enters the kingdom of God” - being “born again,” or being “born of water & the Spirit.” He’s not actually giving a command. 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. Jesus gave the command to baptize in Mt. 28 in what is known as the Great Commission.
2. Jesus is not contradicting Himself if water baptism is a normative necessity. There are exceptions, and this means that water baptism is not an absolute necessity.
3. In the Book of Acts, we see the example of a group of believers upon whom the Holy Spirit descended - they were baptized in the Spirit - BEFORE they were baptized in water, AND YET, Peter made sure that they were baptized in water anyway. Why bother?

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

We usually read that baptism in the Spirit follows water baptism, and so I have always wondered why on this particular occasion, things happened in reverse order. Now I know: it was to give the example of people receiving water baptism after Spirit baptism so that we would never be tempted, as you are, to believe that water baptism is superfluous.

God anticipated your argument, Theta, and He was prepared for it.

Don’t worry, I’m not looking for a debate.

I’m just looking for an answer to my question. I even asked this question to the former bishop of the diocese of my former church, & after going back & forth, he said that he couldn’t really give me an answer, & to “just have faith.” That reply didn’t really sit well with me, so I thought I’d ask it here. Hopefully, I’ll get an answer that is based on the specific question I’m asking. Because so far, I’ve gotten nothing, & would really appreciate a satisfying answer, particularly since this verse has to do with salvation.

No? It’s been 10 days and hundred of posts, and you have given no sign of coming to the end of your -]debating/-] questioning. **

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Dude - everyone gets your question. Unfortunately, ***YOU ***aren’t getting it – there have been plenty of good, thoughtful answers – several times, now.

 

[eazyduzit]

Do you see the danger you are actually acknowledging? See what I bolded in your response.

You are at a buffet filled with sumptuous foods, and all you are doing is taking a portion–a grape–and saying, “This is all I need to be fed!”

Why not feast at the buffet in its entirety?

It’s a fundamentalist approach to look at the Word of God and declare there to be only ONE important verse.

Catholics take the Word of God in its entirety and declare that we are saved, not just by ONE verse…but with the entirety of the sumptuous Word of God.

PR, wow that’s a huge list of things you must do to be saved. Are you trying to include everything in the bible? Where is the end of it all? Why not include the Sermon on the Mount? The more the better?
I see the Word telling me that eternal life is a free gift of God, not something I can pay for. Also something that is complete. St. Paul asked the Galations if they received the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Does this not apply to you because you are from Rome?

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

By feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)
[/INDENT]
It is the diabolical plan of the evil one to dupe folks into thinking they can ignore the rest of the Word of God because they’ve read one verse.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)