The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As far as regeneration, open the link. " Born of Water and spirit " = Baptism

Baptism is not only undetstanding of water. …as we have discussed before on other threads.

At best Jesus may be referring to the Pharisees avoidance of Johns baptism, which was not regenerational. They did not believe like others, not because they didnt have baptism, but because they were carnal and not spiritual, not born of the Spirit. The Lord must quicken understanding, as happened with Peter at his great confession of Jesus being the Son of God.

Jesus, The one who instituted the Catholic Church, and gave all His promises to His Church, His Church has described “baptism” in the link HERE

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Christ Our Pascha, the official Ukrainian Greek Catholic catechism. has an entire chapter on Baptism. C.f. Royal Doors.

 

[steve-b]

Christ Our Pascha, the official Ukrainian Greek Catholic catechism. has an entire chapter on Baptism. C.f. Royal Doors.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Ah, you like Leonard Nimoy too .

 

[mcq72]

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

Good one. I can say however was this regenerational ? and idols ( false gods) pretty much ceased after Babylonian captivity.

Yes, giving believers a new heart is prophetic in OT.

One could also say full immersion that was done by John and apostles is a bit more than a sprinkling.

Indeed John’s baptism was a cleansing preparation for the arrival of the Messiah. It was not regenerational ( which I say was done by grace and faith in both testaments). People believed or did not believe the message of John and then later the apostles during the three years. Believers then got baptized. We are told it was not regenerational but for cleansing. It would seem God worked on the heart and spirits of those that believed and obeyed, and not on those that didn’t like Nicodemus. Hence, the Lord called him out on need to be born of the spirit, in order to finally believe and see the kingdom.

Finally, we have no record of those who got baptized by John and apostles for cleansing, getting rebaptized for regeneration after church began .

 

[mcq72]

Jesus, The one who instituted the Catholic Church, and gave all His promises to His Church, His Church has described “baptism” in the link

You still have not addressed Nicodemus’s problem of not believing. Why wouldnt Jesus address the immediate problem with an immediate fix by being born of Spirit), instead of you insisting of a future fix of regenerational baptism after ascension?no

 

[mcq72]

Really?

Who told you THAT?

Is the Annnunciation OT?

Is the birth of Our Lord OT?

Etc Etc etc…

I don’t see any of that in the OT

Sorry…meant old covenant, Mosaic covenant, as opposed to new covenant beginning with Calvary…perhaps John was inter testament…inter covenant…bridging old and new

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus, The one who instituted the Catholic Church, and gave all His promises to His Church, His Church has described “baptism” in the link

You still have not addressed Nicodemus’s problem of not believing. Why wouldnt Jesus address the immediate problem with an immediate fix by being born of Spirit), instead of you insisting of a future fix of regenerational baptism after ascension?no

Jesus public ministry was only 3 yrs. Not a lot of time. Yet Jesus would see that Everyone would learn AFTER that 3 yr period , what the future fix, is all about

Starting with

Re: the subject of “born again” in baptism

A short read Are Catholics Born Again? | Catholic Answers

 

[mcq72]

Jesus public ministry was only 3 yrs. Not a lot of time. Yet Jesus would see that Everyone would learn AFTER that 3 yr period , what the future fix , is all about

Yet, our fix is by gracious faith, as was before for OT saints. That has never changed.

At the time of Nicodemus discourse, many had such faith ( Mary, Joseph, Zach, John, apostles, other disciples).
Nocodemus did not. He needed to be born of the Spirit, drawn by the Father, like all the aforementioned faithful.

I disagree with those that say you can have gracious faith without gracious regeneration of spirit ( now or in OT).

Jesus was kind of saying, “today is the day of salvation Nicodemus…be born of God today…and believe, like these others, and you wont have to come to me by night anymore”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus public ministry was only 3 yrs. Not a lot of time. Yet Jesus would see that Everyone would learn AFTER that 3 yr period , what the future fix , is all about

Yet, our fix is by gracious faith, as was before for OT saints. That has never changed.

However we know changes occurred,

And the changes, that DID occur, was Jesus, His Church HE established, His sacraments, that HE established, for our salvation, …

AND THEYALL

are necessities not suggestions. As you know, that’s (Not me talking) that’s from scripture and Tradition.,

mcq72:

At the time of Nicodemus discourse, many had such faith ( Mary, Joseph, Zach, John, apostles, other disciples).
Nocodemus did not. He needed to be born of the Spirit, drawn by the Father, like all the aforementioned faithful.

True. And so we don’t look at sacraments as some magic potion, while we don’t see with human eyes the sacramental change and graces that is there, before and AFTER a sacrament has been administered, WE need to cooperate with the grace that the sacrament administers.

Example:

Faith is a gift from God. Yet Paul makes a distinction, when writing to the Church of Rome about those in faith. He opens his mention of faith by complementing them on their "obedience of faith",Rom 1:5-8 and Paul closes the subject of faith in Romans 16:25-26 by saying again, "obedience of faith" . In between ch 1 and ch 16, are the particulars. IOW, Paul is saying faith is in action. As James would say, faith with no action is a said faith, and a said faith is a dead faith, and it won’t save. Jas 2:14 AND Jas 2:26

mcq72:

I disagree with those that say you can have gracious faith without gracious regeneration of spirit ( now or in OT).

As I previously stated, one needs to show they have true faith by their obedience to the true faith. They can’t just "say" they have faith

mcq72:

Jesus was kind of saying, “today is the day of salvation Nicodemus…be born of God today…and believe, like these others, and you wont have to come to me by night anymore”.

And Nicodemus ultimately did follow.

 

[mcq72]

And Nicodemus ultimately did follow

Yes, and way before regenerational baptism, before Calvary. So why do folks assume that being born of water and the Spirit as Jesus admonished is said baptism for Nicodemus?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And Nicodemus ultimately did follow

Yes, and way before regenerational baptism, before Calvary. So why do folks assume that being born of water and the Spirit as Jesus admonished is said baptism for Nicodemus?

Way before? How long is way before?

Jesus entire public ministry from His baptism to His resurrection and ascension was 3 yrs.

AND

It looks like, You didn’t read the link I gave that had all the internal links from that link, defining baptism.

 

[mcq72]

It looks like, You didn’t read the link I gave that had all the internal links from that link, defining baptism.

Read the article.

Seems to say that the apostles baptism in John 3 was regenerational, made one born again, before Calvary, before indwelling of Holy Spirit, and before baptism of Holy Spirit on Pentecost. In fact the article indicates even John’s baptism was by citing Jesus baptism as the context for Nicodemus.

“Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist…This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: …After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21), Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22).”

The article does not say how saints like Mary and Joseph or John the baptist or Zacharias etc. were " saved", but they were obviously born from above but without literal water baptism. Also does not say why Jesus himself did not baptize or why Paul did not consider himself a baptizer but a preacher.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It looks like, You didn’t read the link I gave that had all the internal links from that link, defining baptism.

Read the article.

Seems to say that the apostles baptism in John 3 was regenerational, made one born again, before Calvary, before indwelling of Holy Spirit, and before baptism of Holy Spirit on Pentecost. In fact the article indicates even John’s baptism was by citing Jesus baptism as the context for Nicodemus.

When Jesus was baptized, As it is described, He changed what happens in baptism.

mcq72:

“Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist…This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: …After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21), Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22).”

It’s why John the baptizer, said to Jesus, that Jesus should baptize him, not he baptize Jesus. Jesus changed that action of John, into the sacrament we know today.

mcq72:

The article does not say how saints like Mary and Joseph or John the baptist or Zacharias etc. were " saved", but they were obviously born from above but without literal water baptism. Also does not say why Jesus himself did not baptize or why Paul did not consider himself a baptizer but a preacher.

It is safe to say,

ALL of THEM, followed and obeyed the same rules of faith, that everyone else is required to obey… EVEN if the particulars for THEM following the rules, weren’t specifically written down as such.

As John the apostle said so clearly, in his last words in his gospel

Jn 21:
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

SO

That would likewise cover what Jesus would have done for Mary, Joseph, etc etc even though NOT put into writing

 

[mcq72]

It’s why John the baptizer, said to Jesus, that Jesus should baptize him, not he baptize Jesus. Jesus changed that action of John, into the sacrament we know today.

So people were born again before Calvary by the apostles baptism?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s why John the baptizer, said to Jesus, that Jesus should baptize him, not he baptize Jesus. Jesus changed that action of John, into the sacrament we know today.

SO people were born again before Calvary by the apostles baptism?

in return,

SO, Was the Eucharist Jesus instituted the evening before Calvary, , not valid that evening, before He actually was crucified on Calvary the next day?

Let’s not forget,

Jesus didn’t stop being God just because He took on human flesh.

Jesus baptism massively changed that action to the sacrament it is.

 

[mcq72]

SO, Was the Eucharist Jesus instituted the evening before Calvary, , not valid that evening, before He actually was crucified on Calvary the next day?

Let’s not forget,

Jesus didn’t stop being God just because He took on human flesh.

Jesus baptism massively changed that action to the sacrament it is.

By that rationale, all folks with faith are born again, OT/NT, for all rules were, are a foreshadow, and representative of immutable realities…even partakers of eucharist…of which I then agree with your posit.

So if you can play it forward or backward a spell, why not all the way, back to the Garden, or forward, where we are seated in heavenly places, with Him eternally?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

SO, Was the Eucharist Jesus instituted the evening before Calvary, , not valid that evening, before He actually was crucified on Calvary the next day?

Let’s not forget,

Jesus didn’t stop being God just because He took on human flesh.

Jesus baptism massively changed that action to the sacrament it is.

By that rationale, all folks with faith are born again, OT/NT, for all rules were, are a foreshadow, and representative of immutable realities…even partakers of eucharist…of which I then agree with your posit.

So if you can play it forward or backward a spell, why not all the way, back to the Garden, or forward, where we are seated in heavenly places, with Him eternally?

OK OK

I see I needed to be clearer. Like that’s never happened before

Re: Baptism

if baptism by John, at that moment, was OK , Jesus wouldn’t have changed it…,True?. Instead Jesus changed it into the sacrament we know it is today.

Re: the OT vs the NT

If the OT was just fine, in all it’s particulars, we wouldn’t need the NT…True?

Obviously the OT exhibited types and shadows of what is to be its completion in the NT…True?

Since

Adam and Eve closed heaven to the human race by their sin, THAT needed to be fixed. THUS the NT, and Jesus, was needed, with His Church, His sacraments, etc …true?

Re: faith

allow me to ask

Once someone is knowledegable of the truth

1. What does Jesus is Lord mean ?
2. Can one NOT in, and refuses to be in Our Lord’s Church, still say, Jesus is Lord and mean it, or be a reality for THEM?

 

[mcq72]

If the OT was just fine, in all it’s particulars, we wouldn’t need the NT…True?

Have to define “fine”.

It is fine because it had faith in future promise of a Savior/ Calvary…starting at Garden. Same thing that CC justifies/ explains Mary being freed from sin, clean, ( Immaculate), Calvary graces being pre " forwarded", applied.

Fine in this sense, by faith and grace OT looked forward to Christ/ Calvary, as we in NT look backward.

(All of us still look forward to future glorification in Christ).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If the OT was just fine, in all it’s particulars, we wouldn’t need the NT…True?

Have to define “fine”.

OK

how about sufficient?

mcq72:

It is fine because it had faith in future promise of a Savior/ Calvary…starting at Garden. Same thing that CC justifies/ explains Mary being freed from sin, clean, ( Immaculate), Calvary graces being pre " forwarded", applied.

Fine in this sense, by faith and grace OT looked forward to Christ/ Calvary, as we in NT look backward.

(All of us still look forward to future glorification in Christ).

The OT wasn’t sufficient. AND to be specific, it didn’t save anyone. If it did, there would be no need for a NT, a savior, a messiah…true?

NOW that the NT is here,

We need to obey the NT requirements … I.E. obey the messiah and everything He taught and established… true?

Which gets back to MY questions

allow me to ask

Once someone is knowledegable of the truth

1. What does Jesus is Lord mean ?
2. Can one NOT in , and refuses to be in Our Lord’s Church, still say, Jesus is Lord and mean it, or be a reality for THEM?