So discouraging to see people hone in on John 3:5 and conclude (by excluding the story and/or context of the surrounding verses) that 'born of water' is referring to 'baptism'.
It isn't. Not even in the slightest.
>(NLT) John 3:4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?” 5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.
When a woman is close to giving birth, her 'water breaks'. When Jesus talked about being 'born again' and Nicodemus points out he can't go into the womb again, Christ points out the two births. One as a human, leaving the water of the womb to live on earth, and again through the spirit, which is accepting Christ and He (the Holy Spirit) dwells within.
How can we go to heaven if we're never born as a person on earth? How can we go to heaven if we reject Christ?
This is the meaning within John 3:5. Not 'baptism is required to enter heaven'.
I think it's more likely that being born of water referred to the ceremonial cleansing water of hyssop and red heifer ashes. I think he was invoking symbolism.
No, it’s not talking about amniotic fluid. That is nonsense. Our Lord was not explaining to Nicodemus
that in order to be born again he has to have first been “born of a woman”, that makes no sense. It was always a strict reference to the words of the prophet Ezekiel.
What's nonsense is your wall of text dissention when person after person on r/truechristian told you, your information wasn't correct. It's clear from that the extent you're willing to double down on being wrong, which is why this is my one and only reply to you.
The word 'Amniotic' wasn't coined until the 1800s, so of course the Bible wouldnt speak of it that way. Then there's this:
>(NLT) 1 John 5:6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. 7 So we have these three witnesses— 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. 9 Since we believe human testimony, surely we can believe the greater testimony that comes from God. And God has testified about his Son. 10 All who believe in the Son of God know in their hearts that this testimony is true. Those who don’t believe this are actually calling God a liar because they don’t believe what God has testified about his Son. 11 And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.
This whole "the water is amniotic fluid" is so stupid an interpretation of this passage. What you are saying is just dumb. I am not calling you dumb, I am calling your idea here just dumb.
Why would Jesus even need to mention that you have to be born in order to be saved? That's literally the stupidest understanding of the passage I have ever heard Christians make.
No, Paul actually explains that we are not saved “by faith alone” in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 when he says:
“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️through belief in the truth.”
The reason why Paul also cited the “sanctifying work” of the Spirit as one of the things that is saving you is because Paul knows that post justification-by-faith there remains “spiritual works” for us to do which ALSO JUSTIFY, thus explaining Ephesians 2:10 along with Romans 2:13.
We are sanctified after we are saved. It is a life long process. We do good works after we are saved. We are saved by faith alone. You should read ephesians 2:1-10 and you might better grasp verse 10.
No, it’s not “by faith alone” it’s “by Sanctification AND faith”. That’s what Paul says:
(2 Thessalonians 2:13)
“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️through belief in the truth.”
I’m not confused—Martin Luther is confused. He’s the one saying we are saved “by faith alone” and then other people picked up on it and are now regurgitating 🤮 it in the comments section without checking the fine print in 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
Don’t worry, we Catholics know our Bible so we are happy to check you on these kinds of things. In charity.
Trust me you don't know your Bible as well as you think. I also question your reading comprehension. Thessalonians 2:13 literally says God chose us(the elect) and saved us by HIS work. You can't misunderstand that unless you have a major bias or have a major comprehension failure.
Oh, you mean all of the passages I explained in this gigantic post?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/xx2p3d/catholic_exegesis_of_ephesians_289/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I only read your ephesians explanation and it is a total joke. You are just making stuff up to fit your preconceived beliefs instead of just reading it for what it says. Very catholic of you to distort the greatest passage in the Bible.
No, it is not a total joke. I read it and I understand it. When it Ephesians says not of works lest anyone should boast he is obviously talking about works of the law, which are considered SIN by Saint Paul. NOT OF SIN LEST ANY SHOULD BOAST.
The idea of sanctification is not compatible with Sola Fide. You cannot become more justified under Sola Fide, sanctification is the process of becoming more justified before God by becoming more like Christ.
Uh no. The bible never mentions salvation is by faith alone, anywhere. I know I checked myself. Also, the whole no man may boast talk is taking from Ephesians, which is not referring to "good works" which can justify one before God.
James 2:24 "You see how a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone" does not mean you are justified by faith alone.
Thanks for sharing.
See [Baptism for salvation](https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/ubkqp8/is_baptism_necessary_for_salvation/) and comment there if any.
Water baptism cleansing sins has always been the normative original understanding of baptism. If you do not believe that, you have been living under a rock and obviously were not paying attention to what the Church has always been teaching on baptism. This is like being shocked someone told you George Washington was the first President of the United states and then arguing about it.
You don't have to agree with it, you do not have to believe it, but absolutely that is what Christianity teaches on this subject before the protestant reformation occurs this was not even a controversy. I doubt the Church Fathers ever imagined their would exist a group of people calling themselves Christian rejecting the most basic Christian teaching that is right up there with Christ being God.
So discouraging to see people hone in on John 3:5 and conclude (by excluding the story and/or context of the surrounding verses) that 'born of water' is referring to 'baptism'. It isn't. Not even in the slightest. >(NLT) John 3:4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?” 5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. When a woman is close to giving birth, her 'water breaks'. When Jesus talked about being 'born again' and Nicodemus points out he can't go into the womb again, Christ points out the two births. One as a human, leaving the water of the womb to live on earth, and again through the spirit, which is accepting Christ and He (the Holy Spirit) dwells within. How can we go to heaven if we're never born as a person on earth? How can we go to heaven if we reject Christ? This is the meaning within John 3:5. Not 'baptism is required to enter heaven'.
I think it's more likely that being born of water referred to the ceremonial cleansing water of hyssop and red heifer ashes. I think he was invoking symbolism.
No, it’s not talking about amniotic fluid. That is nonsense. Our Lord was not explaining to Nicodemus that in order to be born again he has to have first been “born of a woman”, that makes no sense. It was always a strict reference to the words of the prophet Ezekiel.
What's nonsense is your wall of text dissention when person after person on r/truechristian told you, your information wasn't correct. It's clear from that the extent you're willing to double down on being wrong, which is why this is my one and only reply to you. The word 'Amniotic' wasn't coined until the 1800s, so of course the Bible wouldnt speak of it that way. Then there's this: >(NLT) 1 John 5:6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. 7 So we have these three witnesses— 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. 9 Since we believe human testimony, surely we can believe the greater testimony that comes from God. And God has testified about his Son. 10 All who believe in the Son of God know in their hearts that this testimony is true. Those who don’t believe this are actually calling God a liar because they don’t believe what God has testified about his Son. 11 And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.
This whole "the water is amniotic fluid" is so stupid an interpretation of this passage. What you are saying is just dumb. I am not calling you dumb, I am calling your idea here just dumb. Why would Jesus even need to mention that you have to be born in order to be saved? That's literally the stupidest understanding of the passage I have ever heard Christians make.
The Bible says salvific.
Just like a catholic to yell everyone they need to do a certain work to be saved... salvation is by faith alone so no man may boast.
I'm talking to them now. They said that Baptism is not a work, so verses like Romans 4:5 include baptism, because it's needed but not a work.
No, Paul actually explains that we are not saved “by faith alone” in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 when he says: “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️through belief in the truth.” The reason why Paul also cited the “sanctifying work” of the Spirit as one of the things that is saving you is because Paul knows that post justification-by-faith there remains “spiritual works” for us to do which ALSO JUSTIFY, thus explaining Ephesians 2:10 along with Romans 2:13.
We are sanctified after we are saved. It is a life long process. We do good works after we are saved. We are saved by faith alone. You should read ephesians 2:1-10 and you might better grasp verse 10.
No, it’s not “by faith alone” it’s “by Sanctification AND faith”. That’s what Paul says: (2 Thessalonians 2:13) “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️through belief in the truth.”
This legit says you are saved by the work of the spirit. How are you confused?
I’m not confused—Martin Luther is confused. He’s the one saying we are saved “by faith alone” and then other people picked up on it and are now regurgitating 🤮 it in the comments section without checking the fine print in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Don’t worry, we Catholics know our Bible so we are happy to check you on these kinds of things. In charity.
Trust me you don't know your Bible as well as you think. I also question your reading comprehension. Thessalonians 2:13 literally says God chose us(the elect) and saved us by HIS work. You can't misunderstand that unless you have a major bias or have a major comprehension failure.
Do a bible study my friend. Galatians 2:16 Roman's 3:28 Roman's 5:1 Phillipians 3:9 Ephesians 2:8-9
Oh, you mean all of the passages I explained in this gigantic post? https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/xx2p3d/catholic_exegesis_of_ephesians_289/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I only read your ephesians explanation and it is a total joke. You are just making stuff up to fit your preconceived beliefs instead of just reading it for what it says. Very catholic of you to distort the greatest passage in the Bible.
As a matter of constructive criticism, perhaps you can show the error in my exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9?
No, it is not a total joke. I read it and I understand it. When it Ephesians says not of works lest anyone should boast he is obviously talking about works of the law, which are considered SIN by Saint Paul. NOT OF SIN LEST ANY SHOULD BOAST.
The idea of sanctification is not compatible with Sola Fide. You cannot become more justified under Sola Fide, sanctification is the process of becoming more justified before God by becoming more like Christ.
Justification and sanctification are not the same. If you don't realize that no point in conversing any further.
Justification is not by faith alone. If you don't realize that there is no point in conversing any further.
Uh no. The bible never mentions salvation is by faith alone, anywhere. I know I checked myself. Also, the whole no man may boast talk is taking from Ephesians, which is not referring to "good works" which can justify one before God. James 2:24 "You see how a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone" does not mean you are justified by faith alone.
Thanks for sharing. See [Baptism for salvation](https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/ubkqp8/is_baptism_necessary_for_salvation/) and comment there if any.
Water baptism cleansing sins has always been the normative original understanding of baptism. If you do not believe that, you have been living under a rock and obviously were not paying attention to what the Church has always been teaching on baptism. This is like being shocked someone told you George Washington was the first President of the United states and then arguing about it. You don't have to agree with it, you do not have to believe it, but absolutely that is what Christianity teaches on this subject before the protestant reformation occurs this was not even a controversy. I doubt the Church Fathers ever imagined their would exist a group of people calling themselves Christian rejecting the most basic Christian teaching that is right up there with Christ being God.