the Catholic's Dilemma? a protestant challenges Devin Rose

[Shaolen]

I went on the discussion page of Devin Rose’s YouTube channel and found a protestant challenging him saying theres a “catholic dilemma” involving John 3:5. Here’s what he said.

"Devin Rose I saw your interview with Jimmy Akin. Congratulations on your new book The Protestant’s Dilemma. However, I’m wondering how you would kindly respond to The Catholic’s Dilemma. Please follow me here:

The Catholic church believes that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism when one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit:

“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Therefore, John 3:5 could also read:

“Unless one is baptized IN water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

In the original Greek, “Unless” means “Except, or if not,” & “cannot” means “has no power to.” So, John 3:5 could also read:

“Except, or if not one is baptized IN water and the Spirit, he has no power to enter the kingdom of God.”

By Jesus using EXCLUSIVE wording in this passage (“Unless” & “cannot”) Jesus would be saying “born of water & the Spirit” or “baptized IN water & the Spirit” is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” If that is true, based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Except” & “cannot”) & “if” the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying that the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God” is by being baptized IN water.

So, BASED on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless” & “cannot”) & “if” the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then how can a person who has been baptized by desire (like the repentant but UNbaptized thief on the cross), those baptized of blood (UNbaptized martyrs for Christ), those invincibly ignorant (like those who never heard the Gospel & were therefore not baptized), & the ‘hope’ of salvation for UNbaptized babies who die, since they were not baptized IN water?

Just to let you know, I was Catholic for most of my life, so I’ve heard the usual arguments that the Catholic church uses like none of these people had the opportunity to be baptized, & Jesus isn’t restricted to the sacraments & commands He gives to us, & most of the ECF’s from the 100’s onwards affirm water baptismal salvation, & Reformers like Luther affirmed it, etc. However, none of these arguments deals with the actual question. First, Jesus wasn’t given Nicodemus a command in John 3:5 - He was actually making a statement by answering his question from John 3:4. So, although Jesus isn’t bound by the commands He gives us, Jesus (being God) can’t lie, & that is what He’d be doing if He meant that “UNLESS one is baptized IN water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God,” but then allows UNbaptized people to “enter the kingdom of God.” Do you see what I’m asking, & the dilemma that it creates by believing that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism simply because many of the ECF’s believed that too? And as a former Catholic, I’m well aware of the other passages that are used to support water baptismal regeneration, like Mark 16:16; Roman Ch.6; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Galatians 3:27; & especially 1 Peter 3:21. However, I want to focus on John 3:5 first, because of the implications of the EXCLUSIVE words used by our Lord in that passage, & how it affects the “exceptions” to “enter the kingdom of God” taught by the Catholic church, as well as the fact that I’ve studied the original Greek of those other passages, which - in context - they are not actually teaching water baptismal regeneration, including 1 Peter 3:21. So, before we tackle those passages, would you kindly address John 3:5, in context of what I’m actually asking about it, in Christian charity, as the apostle Peter commands us: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”?

I pray that once you see the dilemma, you’ll be open to allowing me to explain to you - with Scriptural support, in context of the passage - what the ‘water’ Jesus is actually talking about in John 3:5. I look forward to hearing from you.

Many blessings to you in the Name of our Savior & Lord Jesus Christ,
Steve."

How can we respond to this?

 

[JerryZ]

There is a reason for Jesus’s instructions to Nicodemus and that applies to all future Christians, that is once you have heard the Good News (Gospels) there are only 2 choices left to us, either follow HIM or reject HIM.

But the question then becomes what happens to someone who has NOT heard the Good News, what then.
The Church has pondered this question and drawing from the Old Testament where many did NOT hear the Good News nor knew Jesus and yet we are told that they are in Heaven by none other than Jesus Himself.
The Church has concluded that there may be circumstances where, even though these people did not hear the Gospels they are none the less saved.
If Baptism is always required and if it was performed on this people there must be a way for GOD to allow for these people to receive their Baptism by desire. Which simply means that if they had had the choice to be Baptized they would indeed have accepted it.

---

 

[Gorgias]

“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Therefore, John 3:5 could also read:

“Unless one is baptized IN water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

The word used here isn’t ‘in’ (εν), but ‘out of’ (ἐξ). So, right there his assertions have a serious problem.

By Jesus using EXCLUSIVE wording in this passage (“Unless” & “cannot”) Jesus would be saying “born of water & the Spirit” or “baptized IN water & the Spirit” is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.”

No; it’s necessary to understand conditional statements in Koine Greek in order to make sense of this passage. His conclusion that this is “exclusive wording” misunderstands the third-class conditional (of which this sentence is an example). It does not suggest that this is an exclusive construction.

Just looking at the sentence, there’s another possibility (although I might be mistaken here; I haven’t researched the grammar of “out of water and the Spirit” at length). ‘Water’ and ‘Spirit’ are both in the genitive case here. ‘Water’ is clearly the object of the preposition ‘out of’, which takes a genitive object. The question though, is… how are we to understand ‘Spirit’ in the genitive? Is it completely a prepositional phrase (“born out of water and [out of] the Spirit”)? Or, is ‘Spirit’ used strictly as a noun in the genitive (“born out of water and born of the Spirit”)? If it’s the latter, then we have two distinct items in the condition. And, in conditionals, the two parts of the protasis (that is, the ‘if’ part) do not have equal force – it’s not a (strictly) logical statement that requires both to occur for the protasis to be true. (Think of it this way: if I said to you “if I go to the bar and drink beer, I’ll get drunk”, then is the only way that I get drunk if I drink beer? (Nope – I could get drunk drinking whiskey.) What about if I don’t go to the bar, but drink beer at home? You got it – I’ll get drunk without ever getting near a bar.) In this context – especially given Jesus’ emphasis on being born of the Spirit (see vv. 6 & 8) and being born ‘from above’ (vv. 3, 7) – one may conclude that it’s the birth of the Spirit / from above that’s the critical part, and the ‘out of water’ that is the part that is only one means by which this might happen. In other words, Rose’s contention of exclusively massively fails this analysis.

So, BASED on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless” & “cannot”) & “if” the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then how can a person who has been baptized by desire (like the repentant but UNbaptized thief on the cross), those baptized of blood (UNbaptized martyrs for Christ), those invincibly ignorant (like those who never heard the Gospel & were therefore not baptized), & the ‘hope’ of salvation for UNbaptized babies who die, since they were not baptized IN water?

Aside from his erroneous reliance on a translation of “in water”, he seems unfamiliar with what the Church teaches. From the Catechism:

“[Baptism] is also called ‘the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,’ for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one ‘can enter the kingdom of God.’” (CCC, 1257)

Notice what the Catechism is saying here – baptism isn’t the birth of water; it “brings about the birth of water [and the Spirit].” Therefore, it does not follow that literal baptism is the only means by which the ‘birth of water and the Spirit’, about which Jesus speaks, may occur. (In other words, the physical act of baptism is a cleansing by water; the sacrament causes the “birth of water and the Spirit” of which Jesus speaks.) And, this is precisely what the Church teaches.

I pray that once you see the dilemma, you’ll be open to allowing me to explain to you - with Scriptural support, in context of the passage - what the ‘water’ Jesus is actually talking about in John 3:5.

Not a dilemma… so there’s not an alternative exegesis that’s necessary.

 

[in_servitude]

This is weird.

Jesus tells us that baptism is required to enter Heaven.
Jesus tells the unbaptized crucified thief he will be in paradise.

By his logic, Jesus contradicts **himself **(much less the Catholic Church’s teachings).

Throwing bricks in a glass house, maybe??

 

[Mr_Clean]

Maybe God accepts alternates. Like a person is going to die in the next few minutes and no water is near. The person makes an outward act of asking to be forgiven (washed clean). Other scriptures stating what’s necessary for salvation do not state baptism specifically.

 

[Gorgias]

This is weird.

Jesus tells us that baptism is required to enter Heaven.

That’s the whole point, here: Jesus doesn’t say that, without baptism, it’s impossible to enter heaven. That’s the error that the post that the OP references is making.

 

[Justin61790]

This is weird.

Jesus tells us that baptism is required to enter Heaven.
Jesus tells the unbaptized crucified thief he will be in paradise.

By his logic, Jesus contradicts **himself **(much less the Catholic Church’s teachings).

Throwing bricks in a glass house, maybe??

That’s only a contradiction if we view those verses with no context. The man on the cross beside Jesus was an extraordinary circumstance. That man couldn’t be baptized before he would die, least not by the normal means and methods. Christ knew this. But lucky for the man on the cross he was hanging beside Jesus and through God all things are possible. If Jesus says a person is going to be in Paradise then he will be in Paradise with or without baptism. And for all we know the man did receive baptism from Christ himself at the moment Christ said the man would be in Paradise. Sure no water was involved but Christ was involved so I think that’s enough.

 

[jbejon]

Dear Gorgias,

I’m not sure I catch your drift. You say:

It’s necessary to understand conditional statements in Koine Greek in order to make sense of this passage. His conclusion that this is “exclusive wording” misunderstands the third-class conditional (of which this sentence is an example). It does not suggest that this is an exclusive construction.

What exactly do you mean by “an exclusive construction” here? Do you mean that the text implies that there might be people who aren’t born of water and the Spirit but who nevertheless enter the kingdom of God?

James.

 

[Gorgias]

What exactly do you mean by “an exclusive construction” here?

There are a couple of things in play here…

Do you mean that the text implies that there might be people who aren’t born of water and the Spirit but who nevertheless enter the kingdom of God?

Well, first off, given that it’s a third-class conditional, there’s a certain element of the future being discussed. So, this statement isn’t saying that people who died before Jesus’ ministry are damned (by virtue of this statement). Therefore, if anyone who lived prior to Jesus’ earthly life is saved, then we’ve already refuted the assertion that Jesus has created an ‘exclusive’ requirement.

Secondly, this kind of conditional doesn’t express any definitive opinion on whether the ‘if’ part will be true (and therefore, that the ‘then’ part will ever come into effect). So, we can’t really say whether there are any people who are (or will be) not born of water and Spirit. (Notice, too, that this doesn’t imply that all who are born of water and Spirit will be saved – just that, if they’re not, then they won’t enter the kingdom of God. It’s kind of like saying that, without a ticket, you won’t get into the concert: this claim doesn’t assert that there are people without tickets, nor does it claim that all with tickets will go to the concert.)

Finally, according to the OP, Rose’s interlocutor claims that the ‘exclusivity’ in Jesus’ statement implies an absolute, incontrovertible requirement for water baptism – that is, for being born “in water.” I’ve pointed out two good reasons for asserting that this notion is unfounded. Therefore, we cannot say, as Rose’s interlocutor apparently does, that the Catholic Church is asserting that, without the Sacrament of Baptism, a person is doomed to damnation.

Does that help?

 

[jbejon]

There are a couple of things in play here…

Well, first off, given that it’s a third-class conditional, there’s a certain element of the future being discussed. So, this statement isn’t saying that people who died before Jesus’ ministry are damned (by virtue of this statement). Therefore, if anyone who lived prior to Jesus’ earthly life is saved, then we’ve already refuted the assertion that Jesus has created an ‘exclusive’ requirement.

Secondly, this kind of conditional doesn’t express any definitive opinion on whether the ‘if’ part will be true (and therefore, that the ‘then’ part will ever come into effect). So, we can’t really say whether there are any people who are (or will be) not born of water and Spirit. (Notice, too, that this doesn’t imply that all who are born of water and Spirit will be saved – just that, if they’re not, then they won’t enter the kingdom of God. It’s kind of like saying that, without a ticket, you won’t get into the concert: this claim doesn’t assert that there are people without tickets, nor does it claim that all with tickets will go to the concert.)

Finally, according to the OP, Rose’s interlocutor claims that the ‘exclusivity’ in Jesus’ statement implies an absolute, incontrovertible requirement for water baptism – that is, for being born “in water.” I’ve pointed out two good reasons for asserting that this notion is unfounded. Therefore, we cannot say, as Rose’s interlocutor apparently does, that the Catholic Church is asserting that, without the Sacrament of Baptism, a person is doomed to damnation.

Does that help?

It does help, yes. Thanks Gorgias.

I take your point re the Catechism, i.e., that baptism isn’t itself the birth via water and the Spirit but the means by which it’s brought about. I think that’s an important point (which dispenses with the OP’s objection).

I’m less convinced, however, about your comments on the third-class conditional. We have a statement of the form, ‘If not X, then not Y’ (where X is birth via water and the Spirit and Y is entering God’s kingdom); in other words, whoever doesn’t experience X won’t enjoy Y. The particular class of conditional employed simply tells us about the speaker’s expectation of X’s pertaining. That doesn’t weaken the necessary link between the protasis and apodosis, which, I think, is the important point if we’re talking about ‘exclusivity’.

James.

 

[Gorgias]

The particular class of conditional employed simply tells us about the speaker’s expectation of X’s pertaining. That doesn’t weaken the necessary link between the protasis and apodosis

Right. I was simply trying to say that the statement doesn’t imply the number of people who will (or will not) be “born out of water and of the Spirit.” It talks about what happens if one is not born in such a way, but doesn’t say anything about the expectation of whether anyone (or how many) will meet that condition.

 

[in_servitude]

That’s the whole point, here: Jesus doesn’t say that, without baptism, it’s impossible to enter heaven. That’s the error that the post that the OP references is making.

The weirdness is that a person is arguing that the Catholic Church is teaching error. They go on about how a person must be baptized “IN”, etc. They use this as an argument against baptism through desire or blood. The whole point is to try to proof text their way into saying that there is this** big dilemma for the Catholic Church.**

But, this person is really arguing one statement of Jesus against another in an effort to build a case saying that the Catholic Church is off track.

I wasn’t getting into the technical details of his argument, just noting how strange an argument it is. How could one make the case that this is a dilemma for the Catholic Church? The scriptures tear the argument to pieces easily - and with direct quotes from Christ himself.

 

[juliamajor]

You think thAt 2000 years of actions would convince anyone what we really believe!
. No solid challenge .Just smoke and mirrors and tricks with words that the vast majority wouldn’t get. Yeah, but it sounds great and keeps demagogues from being out of work.
Ifthey 3 read the Didache it would solve a lot. But because it s extra biblical, no matter if the apostles had a hand in, it is considered unusable no matter what. That’s what happens when a you use the bible to explain the bible.

 

[Ignatius]

"Devin Rose I saw your interview with Jimmy Akin. Congratulations on your new book The Protestant’s Dilemma. However, I’m wondering how you would kindly respond to The Catholic’s Dilemma. Please follow me here:

The Catholic church believes that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism when one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit:

“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Therefore, John 3:5 could also read:

“Unless one is baptized IN water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

In the original Greek, “Unless” means “Except, or if not,” & “cannot” means “has no power to.” So, John 3:5 could also read:

“Except, or if not one is baptized IN water and the Spirit, he has no power to enter the kingdom of God.”

By Jesus using EXCLUSIVE wording in this passage (“Unless” & “cannot”) Jesus would be saying “born of water & the Spirit” or “baptized IN water & the Spirit” is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” If that is true, based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Except” & “cannot”) & “if” the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is saying that the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God” is by being baptized IN water.

So, BASED on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless” & “cannot”) & “if” the Catholic interpretation of ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism, then how can a person who has been baptized by desire (like the repentant but UNbaptized thief on the cross), those baptized of blood (UNbaptized martyrs for Christ), those invincibly ignorant (like those who never heard the Gospel & were therefore not baptized), & the ‘hope’ of salvation for UNbaptized babies who die, since they were not baptized IN water?

Just to let you know, I was Catholic for most of my life, so I’ve heard the usual arguments that the Catholic church uses like none of these people had the opportunity to be baptized, & Jesus isn’t restricted to the sacraments & commands He gives to us, & most of the ECF’s from the 100’s onwards affirm water baptismal salvation, & Reformers like Luther affirmed it, etc. However, none of these arguments deals with the actual question. First, Jesus wasn’t given Nicodemus a command in John 3:5 - He was actually making a statement by answering his question from John 3:4. So, although Jesus isn’t bound by the commands He gives us, Jesus (being God) can’t lie, & that is what He’d be doing if He meant that “UNLESS one is baptized IN water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God,” but then allows UNbaptized people to “enter the kingdom of God.” Do you see what I’m asking, & the dilemma that it creates by believing that the ‘water’ in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism simply because many of the ECF’s believed that too? And as a former Catholic, I’m well aware of the other passages that are used to support water baptismal regeneration, like Mark 16:16; Roman Ch.6; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Galatians 3:27; & especially 1 Peter 3:21. However, I want to focus on John 3:5 first, because of the implications of the EXCLUSIVE words used by our Lord in that passage, & how it affects the “exceptions” to “enter the kingdom of God” taught by the Catholic church, as well as the fact that I’ve studied the original Greek of those other passages, which - in context - they are not actually teaching water baptismal regeneration, including 1 Peter 3:21. So, before we tackle those passages, would you kindly address John 3:5, in context of what I’m actually asking about it, in Christian charity, as the apostle Peter commands us: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”?
."

How can we respond to this?

That is very weak. It’s all dependent on your interpretation. So, unless they reject the Protestant Doctrine that everyone can interpret the Bible for themselves, their argument violates Protestant Doctrine, linguistic contortions not withstanding.

 

[Ignatius]

Here is the translation of His Name is several other languages.
Albanian Jezusi
Arabic Isà عيسى (Islamic) / Yasū(a) يسوع (Christian)
Aragonese Chesús
Aramaic/Syriac ܝܫܘܥ (Isho)
Armenian Հիսուս (Hisus)
Azerbaijani İsa
Belarus Ісус (Isus) (Orthodox) / Езус (Yezus) (Catholic)
Bengali যীশু
Bosnian Isus
Breton Jezuz
Catalan Jesús
Cornish Yesu
Croatian Isus
Czech Ježíš
Dutch Jezus
Estonian Jeesus
Finnish Jeesus
French Jésus
Galician Xesús
Garo Jisu
Georgian იესო (Ieso)
Greek Ιησούς (Iisoús modern Greek pronunciation)
Haitian Creole Jezi
Hawaiian Jesu
Hebrew Yeshu ישו (Jewish, secular) / Yeshua יֵשׁוּעַ (Christian)
Hmong Daw Yexus
Hungarian Jézus
Icelandic Jesús
Indonesia Yesus (Christian) / Isa (Islamic)
Irish Íosa
Italian Gesù
Japanese イエズス (Iezusu)/ゼス(zesu) ゼズス(zezusu)(Kirishitan)
Korean 예수 (Yesu)
Kurdish Îsa
Ligurian Gesû
Limburgish Zjezus
Lithuanian Jėzus
Lombard Gesü
Mirandese Jasus
Maltese Ġesù
Neapolitan Gèsù
Piedmontese Gesù
Polish Jezus
Romanian Isus
Russian Иисус (Iisus)
Sardinian Gesùs
Serbian Исус (Isus)
Sicilian Gesù
Scottish Gaelic Ìosa
Slovak Ježiš
Slovenian Jezus
Spanish Jesús
Swahili Yesu
Tajik Исо (Iso)
Tamil இயேசு - Yesu
Telugu Yesu
Thai เยซู - “Yesu”
Turkish İsa
Turkmen Isa
Ukrainian Ісус (Isus)
Uzbek Iso
Venetian Jesu
Vietnamese Giêsu
Welsh Iesu

 

[Michael_Francis]

*** Moot point since that particular individual had his issue answered here on CAF sometime back in this thread*.**
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)