Monday, July 26, 2010

I keep water in my truck

This weekend I made the acquaintance of the most educated and consistent Romanist I've ever met in person, and he's not an academic-type either; he's an electrician. 
In the course of our discussions, I asked him a question I enjoy asking people, ripped straight out of the Way of the Master playbook - "I'm curious, if you were to find me lying on the sidewalk, no one else around, with a knife in my back and I had 3 minutes to live, what would you tell me?"
He started with: "Well, I'd ask you if you've been baptised."
I said: "I tell you 'no, I haven't.'"
Him: "Then the church says that in emergencies if there's no one of authority around, anyone can baptise."
Me: "And if there's no water around?"
Him:  "The church recognises such thing as a 'baptism of desire', but in fact, I carry water around in my truck for just that contingency."
Me:  ". . ."


Carrie said...

Ha! That guy is prepared.

pilgrim said...

At least he's consistent, I'll give him that.

EA said...

Okay, what if I have three minutes to live and you go back to your truck, it's locked, and you realize that you don't know where your keys are, do you:

A) Pray to St. Anthony to help you find your keys?

B) Break a window & say a rosary?

C) Both A & B

D) Find a Christian?

Jae said...

True Christian take EVERYTHING in the Bible as important and who could claim they have the "essentials and the rest are not important in the Scripture?" By mere saying which one is or not is already an affirmation of authority which protestants hated the Catholic Church for - also the idea is nowhere found in the Bible.

A good example: BAPTISM

The Church has decided that the references to Baptism in Scripture must be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, no exceptions. In fact, the Council of Trent bases this teaching on (John 3:5) where Jesus said: "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16);(1 Peter 3:21).

Now, granted, you may have a different interpretation of that verse. In fact, yours may even sound better than ours. It's easy to believe that the water is merely symbolic. The Bible uses symbols all the time.

But the $64,000 question is: is the Bible using symbols in John 3:5? How would we know for sure?

We seem to have at least two possibilities. In fact, there are other possibilities. Some Protestants believe the water refers to the word of God, and base that interpretation on Ephesians 5:26. Others believe the water refers to the amniotic fluid in the mother's womb. Others believe the water is more than just a symbol but still doesn't save anyone.

So, in effect, we have five different interpretations of John 3:5, and they all sound very good, but there can only be one correct interpretation and the others are devilish imposters. The context of John 2-4 doesn't help too much in settling on one meaning. So what do we do? Well, the good Catholic will ask: what did John mean when he wrote the words of John 3:5?

Well, we need to ask John what he meant. But, of course, John is dead. Fortunately, however, we know what John meant because he told his fellow apostles, and they told the disciples, and they told the churches. When we examine the record of the churches (and we know them be reading the documents of those times) it is a fact that every church, every Father, every council, and every other body with any semblance of ecclesiastical authority said that the interpretation which holds that the water is the miraculous means of grace and actually procures justification is the only correct answer, and all the others are PIOUS FRAUDS.

Does it carry somehow grace or just a "mere" symbol without any significance or weight?

Why is it in Bible if it's not important?(with the concept of everything in the Bible is important-Word of God)

Why do Christ and his Apostles insisted for their followers?

Lastly, which one of the protestant interpretation is true?

Peace to All.

Jae said...

@Rhology, please see my only comment about artificial contraception and differences amongst protestants compared with catholics in your previous article, "RELAVIST HODGEPODGE"

Peace to you.

Rhology said...


Why would I care about your vapid "arguments" about Prots and contraception? The Bible has nothing to say about contraception beyond "Um, don't kill your baby".

Why you think that "Protestants in the past have held positions with which you disagree" is anything like a compelling argument is beyond me.

You said:
Lastly, which one of the protestant interpretation is true?

Which of the interps of Sacred Tradition is true?
This question is a non-starter. Find something else.

Andrew Suttles said...

With regards to John 3 -

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

(Ezekiel 36:25-27)

See also Titus 3:5

John Lollard said...


Can you prove that John told his fellow apostles who told the disciples who told the churches? Do you have anything like an isnad for this tradition? Do you even have any evidence of this tradition existing during the life of John the Evangelist?

This is the problem with Roman Catholic tradition. It sounds very nice and if you actually had any then I might find that tradition convincing, except that you really don't have any actual tradition from the Apostles. Nix that; you have tradition from the Apostles, collected in writing by the first century and attested through the generations of the churches as coming from the Apostles, and it is called the New Testament.

I don't mean any disrespect, but I see RCs doing this all the time. You see the word "tradition" in 2 Thessalonians and instantly proclaim that your church is the one that holds to that tradition - except that you cannot trace any of it to the Thessalonian church in the first century. Even if I allowed that Paul is referring to something other than 1 Thessalonians or a teaching not now found in Scripture, how do I know that Paul means prayer-to-Mary tradition and not heads-bowed-eyes-shut-who-wants-to-be-saved tradition? Maybe yours comes earlier, but history doesn't tell us that either goes back to the Apostles.

Likewise, you se a confusing passage of Scripture, think it'd be nice if there were clarification, maybe if the author had left a little note or something, and proclaim that Roman has this "note" in the form of sacred tradition. It's a huge leap from "it'd be nice if" to "it really happened". Yeah, it'd be nice if John had told the others what he meant by this verse, and if those others had told others, and if this teaching was handed down from John through the generations of the Church. It just didn't.

You can't point to one single word of teaching from the Apostles that is not contained in Scripture. If you can, the it would be a first for me and I'd love to see it.

Love in Christ,
John Lollard

Jae said...

@Rhology, you said, "Why you think that "Protestants in the past have held positions with which you disagree" is anything like a compelling argument is beyond me."

You are right, it's compelling allright and it just proved my point to the utter failure of an idea behind the Sola Scriptura, since no authoritative interpretation is higher than anybody else's a relativistic mentality resulted. The job falls upon the head of every individual Protestant to determine for themselves what they want to be doctrine, and at that point the Truth becomes relative to each individual.A Protestant cannot tell another Protestant they must believe "X", because that would require the very Church authority Protestants condemn Catholics for exercising.

And by the way, Luther and Calvin - protestantism's founding fathers take against artificial contraception as opposed to yours confirmed my position as well about Sola Scriptura, ask yourself then why would a protestant christian believe your version where in fact opposite of your "fathers" in the first place? Please don't comment like it's just a disagreement between protestants without any consequence - IT IS A SERIOUS ACT and for a follower of Christ demanded by Him to be Holy (Heb 12:14).

Oh by the way, that is why they called "ARTIFICIAL" "CONTRACEPTION" because of the fact that it is UNNATURAL (viz gay-marriage etc) which the Apostle Paul has based on the Natural Law which is of course comes from God...Thanks.

If you care to read the dissertations of Luther, Calvin and Wesley on this very topic.

John Lollard said...

Hey Jae,

I hate to dogpile on you, but I don't see how there is any failure in Sola Scriptura going on here. Old Protestants thought contraception was wrong - why, I don't know. Looking to Scripture for guidance, there isn't a single word about contraception in all of Scripture. Since Scripture does not condemn it, the Sola Scripturist does not condemn it. Even when old authority figures condemned it, their verdict was overturned by the weight of Scripture.

It seems to be working just fine.

The idea that the individual gets to determine what they want to believe and find scripture to support it is the absolute opposite of Sola Scriptura. Pretty obviously, if you determine what you want to believe before consulting Scripture, then you are not relying on Scripture alone to inform your beliefs. What you have to do instead is determine what Scripture actually says, regardless of what you personally want to believe. Like I for one would like to believe that there is no such thing as Hell, but Jesus in Scripture says there is, and so I believe Him. If I determined what I wanted to believe, I'd believe in universalism or annihilationism or something.

But just so we're clear, there is no relativism in Sola Scriptura. There is disagreement, but disagreement isn't relativism. Maybe Luther or Wesley thought that Scripture taught against contraception, but they're wrong. Scripture doesn't teach against them. There's no "it does for them, doesn't for us". It doesn't, plain and simple.

If it's that serious of an issue, then someone should provide the passage where Scripture teaches against contraception. As there is no such passage, then it can't possibly be a serious issue - Scripture makes us prepared for every good work.

By the way, I like that you used "viz" in your post. You don't see that term alot, and it's a good term.

Love in Christ,

Rhology said...


Obviously hyperlinks don't work for you, so let me be as clear as I can.

Your "no authoritative interp is higher than anyone else's" argument is a non-starter. Here is why. Read this. Click here. Read it. Don't comment again until you read this. To read it, click right on this blue underlined text. Then read the article that appears in your Internet browser. Cool?